Case Summary
Radhamani, as the counter claim plaintiff, alleged that the defendants were obstructing her and her daughter's use of a pathway leading to their property. The counter claim was filed to restrain the defendants from trespassing and obstructing construction on contested property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against the counter claim defendants from trespassing and obstructing
Case Type
Injunction
Final Judgment
No
The counter claim was decreed in favor of the counter claim plaintiffs, authorizing them to construct a compound wall and restraining the defendants from obstructing this right.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The counter claim plaintiffs established ownership and the necessity of the injunction through evidence and the absence of opposition evidence.
The counter claim plaintiffs established ownership and the necessity of the injunction through evidence and the absence of opposition evidence.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The cause of action alleged in the counterclaim stands proved through the deposition of PW1 and also from Ext. A1 to A4. There is no contra evidence to prove otherwise.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the counter claim is decreed with costs as follows: (i) The counter claim defendants and their men are restrained from trespassing into the counterclaim schedule property, and from demolishing its boundary and from causing any obstruction to the construction of compound wall in the counterclaim schedule property and also from committing any waste therein.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Radhamani
- Party Age
- 68
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Prabha.M
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Anju
- Party Age
- 26
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 6554/1951, Land Tax Receipt, Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 3948/1979, Land Tax Receipt
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M.I.Alexander Panicker
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Seema.C
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Philip.K.Thomas
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Thomas Philip.K.
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Counter claim plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining counter claim defendants from trespassing into the counterclaim schedule property.
Evidence:
The counterclaim plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No. 6554/1951 proving ownership of counterclaim schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Land tax receipt dated 04/10/2024 issued from Kilikolloor Village supporting counterclaim ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No. 3948/1979 supporting the counterclaim plaintiffs' ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Land tax receipt dated 04/10/2024 issued from Kilikolloor Village office supporting counterclaim ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Case Classification
Case Type
Injunction
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Radhamani vs Prabha.M et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Radhamani vs Prabha.M et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction