Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS 100/2020

Case between Raveendran Nair et al vs Mohanan regarding fixation of boundary, mandatory injunction and permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VAIKOM
Judge
Kum. Abhinimol Rajendran
Order Date
2025-07-31
Duration
approximately-5 years 5 months
Case Code No.
100
Case Closed
Thu, 07/31/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Raveendran Nair, Sukumaran Nair, and Sadasivan Nair, are seeking to fix the boundary of their property and to obtain injunctions against the defendant, Mohanan, who they allege has unlawfully damaged their land. The defendant denies the allegations and claims the plaintiffs have also engaged in illegal activities.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court granted the plaintiffs a decree to fix the southern boundary and ordered the defendant to restore the damaged portion of the plaintiffs' property.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendant is directed to restore item No.3 portion to its original condition and is restrained from altering the boundaries of item No.1.
Case Type
Original Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court granted the plaintiffs a decree to fix the southern boundary and ordered the defendant to restore the damaged portion of the plaintiffs' property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs provided credible evidence showing that the defendant's actions caused damage to their property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs provided credible evidence showing that the defendant's actions caused damage to their property.
Supporting Evidence
Going through the commission reports it could be seen that the commissioner had identified the properties. According to the commission report, item No.1 property appears to be in its natural state.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit was decreed as follows: 1. A-D line shown in the Ext.C2(a) plan is fixed as the southern boundary to separate plaint item No.1 and 2 properties.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Raveendran Nair
Party Age
66
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sukumaran Nair
Party Age
64
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sadasivan Nair
Party Age
50
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Mohanan
Party Age
60
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified Copy of Sale Deed No.1050/2005 of SRO Thalayolaparambu.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
N Sreejith
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Anish Gopal
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Adarsh Renjan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendant is directed to restore item No.3 portion to its original condition.
Evidence:
Plaintiffs were entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction whereby the defendant is directed to restore item No.3 portion to its original condition by reinforcing the southern side of item No.1 property with a basement made of granite from east to west within a period of 15 days from the date of this order.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendant is restrained from altering the boundaries of item No.1.
Evidence:
The defendant or anybody under him was restrained by an order of permanent prohibitory injunction from altering the boundaries of item No.1 and causing any damage in it.
Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Fixing the southern boundary between plaint item No.1 and item No.2.
Evidence:
A-D line shown in the Ext.C2(a) plan is fixed as the southern boundary to separate plaint item No.1 and 2 properties.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No.1050/2005 from Thalayolaparambu SRO pertaining to plaint schedule item No.1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report filed by Adv. M.G.Renjith regarding the boundaries and condition of the items in the plaint.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch prepared by Adv. Commissioner attached with the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Survey Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Survey commission report filed by Adv. M.G.Renjith detailing the properties and boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Survey Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Survey plan prepared by Suresh T.D. Taluk Surveyor, attached with the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)

Case Classification

Case Type
Original Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Vaikom
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS
Case Code Year
2020

Quick Facts

Location
Vaikom
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Vaikom
Case Filed
Fri, 07/31/2020 - 12:00
Case Closed
Thu, 07/31/2025 - 12:00
From
Tue, 07/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Tue, 09/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between K.Vijayan et al vs Varkey Varghese regarding refund of court fee
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VAIKOM
Original Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Mathew et al vs Jijimon Varghese regarding dismissal for default.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VAIKOM
Original Suit Defendant Won
Case between Radha et al vs Rajani regarding suit for default
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VAIKOM
Original Suit Defendant Won
Case between Anilkumar M R vs T.K. Sundaran et al regarding dismissal for default.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VAIKOM
Original Suit Defendant Won
Case between M V Chacko vs Maya Sibi et al regarding settlement.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, VAIKOM
Original Suit Plaintiff Won