Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 188/2019

Case between Satheedevi vs Balakrishnan @ Gopalakrishnan et al regarding boundary fixation and injunction

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, PERUMBAVOOR
Judge
Smt. Alshari A.
Order Date
2025-03-21
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves a dispute between Satheedevi and multiple defendants regarding the fixation of boundaries of property and seeking injunctions against encroachment. The plaintiff claims that the defendants have encroached upon her property.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court found the suit maintainable and dismissed the contentions raised by the defendants. The suit was filed for boundary fixation and injunction due to encroachment by the defendants.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court concluded that the earlier suit was dismissed for default, allowing the plaintiff to file this fresh suit.

Judgment Evidence:

Therefore, a subsequent suit filed would not be hit by Order 23 Rule 4 when the earlier suit was dismissed for default.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Satheedevi (67 years) Kolakkattu House, Cheranalloor Kara, Koovappady Village

Defendants

Balakrishnan @ Gopalakrishnan (68 years) Kolakkattu House, Cheranalloor Kara, Koovappady Village Sukumari (60 years) Kolakkattu House, Cheranalloor Kara, Koovappady Village Sreejith (33 years) Kolakkattu House, Cheranalloor Kara, Koovappady Village Sreeja (30 years) Kolakkattu House, Cheranalloor Kara, Koovappady Village Prathapachandran (60 years) Kolakkattu House, residing at Sreehari House, Elambakappilly Kara, Vengoor West Village

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to dismantle constructions made by the defendant on the plaintiff's property.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for.
Relief Type: Perpetual Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff requested perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from trespassing and obstructing access to the plaint scheduled properties.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for.
Relief Type: Fixation of Boundary
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought to fix the boundaries between the properties of the plaintiff and defendants.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was referenced to establish the partition of property that the plaintiff claims.
Reference:
No. 4812/06
Document Type: Title deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was mentioned to show the transfer of property to the plaintiff from her husband.
Reference:
No. 4350/98
Document Type: Title deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
These documents were cited to claim that the defendants had received property under these deeds.
Reference:
No. 5327/15 and 1230/16
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Oral evidence was considered regarding the disputes and contentions presented by both parties.
Reference:

Quick Facts

Location
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases