Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S No. 313/2021

Case between Suresh Babu et al vs Vinod et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Judge
Smt. Jyothi Babu R.
Order Date
2025-10-28
Duration
approximately-4 years 11 days
Case Closed
Tue, 10/28/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Suresh Babu and Prasadini, are seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, Vinod, Viswambharan, and Sindhu. The suit is related to an obstruction caused by the defendants in the construction of a boundary wall on the plaintiffs' property.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from trespassing and obstructing the construction of the boundary wall as per the permit obtained from the municipality.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendants are restrained from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property and causing obstruction to the construction of the northern boundary wall.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from trespassing and obstructing the construction of the boundary wall as per the permit obtained from the municipality.
Why Plaintiff Won:
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Supporting Evidence
The withdrawal of contentions in the written statement would amount to the admission of the claim put forward by the plaintiffs. Hence the case of the plaintiff stands proved.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, Suit is decreed as follows: The defendants and the men claiming under them are restrained from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property, from widening the plaint B schedule property by annexing any portion of the plaint A schedule property, from committing any waste or mischief in the plaint schedule property and from causing obstruction to the construction of the northern boundary wall as per the permit given by the Kottayam Municipality.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Suresh Babu
Party Age
67
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Prasadini
Party Age
65
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Vinod
Party Age
45
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Viswambharan
Party Age
45
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sindhu
Party Age
40
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of sale deed no. 4022/1994, Tax receipt, Site Approval and compound wall permit, Letter from Block Development Officer, Pallom, Copy of complaint of Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, Receipt from District Police Chief, Kottayam
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Adv. K Karjet
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Adv. Nikhildev N
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendants are restrained from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property and from widening the plaint B schedule property.
Evidence:
the defendants and the men claiming under them are restrained from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property, from widening the plaint B schedule property by annexing any portion of the plaint A schedule property, from committing any waste or mischief in the plaint schedule property and from causing obstruction to the construction of the northern boundary wall as per the permit given by the Kottayam Municipality.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Copy of sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the plaintiffs' ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is related to the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Site Approval and compound wall permit
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document proves that the plaintiffs had permission to construct a boundary wall.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Letter from Block Development Officer
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the plaintiffs' claims regarding their property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Copy of complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document relates to previous complaints made by the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Receipt from District Police Chief
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is a receipt that supports the plaintiffs' claims.
Reference:
Ext.A6

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Suresh Babu et al vs Vinod et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Suresh Babu et al vs Vinod et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Quick Facts

Location
Kottayam
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Case Filed
Thu, 10/28/2021 - 12:00
Case Closed
Tue, 10/28/2025 - 12:00
From
Fri, 08/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 10/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
100%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Nattakom Service Co-Operative Bank et al vs Roy V.J. et al regarding Decree
Munsiff Court/Judicial First Class Magistrate -IV, Kottayam
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between N.M.Sivarajan vs George Varghese @ Georgekutty, Anil Varghese, Aliyamma regarding compromise petition.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between N.A.George et al vs T.C. Ipe et al regarding declaration and injunction
Principal Munsiff's Court, Kottayam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Abraham Philipose et al vs John Mathyas et al regarding injunction and fixation of boundary
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Surendran. T.U vs State of Kerala et al regarding default dismissal of suit
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won