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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O. S. No.224/2018

Case between Shajeena Shameem vs Subaida regarding fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF
Judge
Smt. Sumey Chandran
Order Date
2025-11-29
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Shajeena Shameem and her father-in-law Hydrose, filed a suit seeking the fixation of boundaries for their property against the defendant Subaida, who they allege unlawfully removed boundary stones and obstructed their attempts to demarcate their property. The case revolves around possession and claims over the disputed property.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the suit for fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction, stating that the plaintiff was not in possession of the entire property claimed and had not sought recovery of possession. The court found that the dispute was more about possession than simply a boundary issue.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff's failure to establish exclusive possession over the entire claimed property as mandated by law.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Shajeena Shameem (36 years years) Vadavanakkudy House, Vengola Kara, Arackappady Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk. Hydrose (70 years years) Vadavanakkudy House, Vengola Kara, Arackappady Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk.

Defendants

Subaida (59 years years) Kinakkassery House, Now residing at Vadavanakkudy Thekkepurayidam, Vengola Kara, Arackappady Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk.

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with possession.
Evidence:
The settled legal position, as laid down by the High Court of Kerala, squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought fixation of the boundary of the property.
Evidence:
The suit for fixation of boundary presupposes lawful possession and that demarcation cannot be ordered where the real dispute is one of possession.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the title of the first plaintiff over the plaint A-schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the plaintiff's claim of ownership and possession.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is evidence relating to the ownership of property relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is further evidence of the plaintiff's claim to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document supports the defendant's claims regarding the boundary of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document serves as evidence for the defendant's ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document is additional evidence concerning the defendant's ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Judgment
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document refers to a previous judgment affecting the current case.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This report provides critical evidence regarding the boundaries in question.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This sketch accompanies the commission report and illustrates property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)

Quick Facts

Location
PERUMBAVOOR
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases