Case Summary
The case involves a dispute over property access where the plaintiffs, Sathikumari and her daughter Nikeshitha, are seeking an injunction to prevent the defendants from trespassing and claiming a right of way through their property. The defendants, Vijayan, Viji, Vineetha, and Shibu, contest this claim, asserting their own rights to the pathway.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Status quo regarding the property until final disposal of the suit
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled to maintain the status quo regarding the property in question, allowing no party to alter the existing conditions until the final disposal of the suit. No costs were awarded.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found that the petitioners had a prima facie case and the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo.
The court found that the petitioners had a prima facie case and the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found that the petitioners had a prima facie case and the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo.
The court found that the petitioners had a prima facie case and the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo.
Supporting Evidence
To sustain validity of a claim for temporary injunction it is not only that plaintiff has to establish his prima facie case as to his right, but he has also to further the balance of convenience lay in his favour and that he would suffer irreparable injury if the temporary injunction prayed for was not granted.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result this application is disposed by directing the parties to maintain status quo as per commission report till the final disposal of the suit.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sathikumari. S.
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nikeshitha
- Party Age
- 39
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vijayan
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Viji
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vineetha. M.
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Shibu. R.
- Party Age
- 49
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of settlement deed No.4097/1/1996, Certified copy of settlement deed No.1263/1/2011, Tax receipts
Defendants Documents
Location plan of the property of 2nd respondent, Tax receipts
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P.S. Harikumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Mahesh Dev .M.S.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain respondents from trespassing into plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The balance of convenience is in favour of respondent and if an order of injunction is not granted, no irreparable injury or hardship would be caused to the petitioner.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of settlement deed No.4097/1/1996 establishing ownership of plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of settlement deed No.1263/1/2011 related to plaint B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt pertaining to plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt pertaining to plaint B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Complaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of complaint filed before SHO, Sreekariyam police station regarding unlawful attempts to trespass.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Acknowledgment Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Receipt of acknowledgment of Ext.A5 complaint.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Location plan
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Location plan of the property of 2nd respondent indicating existing pathway.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Tax receipt obtained in favour of 2nd respondent.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Tax receipt obtained in favour of 4th respondent.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report on the condition and nature of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch accompanying the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Sathikumari. S. vs Vijayan et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Sathikumari. S. vs Vijayan et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction