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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 1151/2013

Case between Swapna vs Sudarsanan M R regarding appointment of Advocate Commissioner

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-11-11
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

This case involves a petition filed by Swapna against Sudarsanan M R seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure and demarcate property boundaries due to a dispute. The case addresses the plaintiff's claim of ownership and the defendant's allegations of encroachment.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the petition for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to facilitate the measurement and demarcation of property boundaries as per the claims of both parties.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Appointment of Advocate Commissioner and Taluk Surveyor for property measurement
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner necessary for proper adjudication of the suit.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is allowed on the following terms: Advocate Shalu Varghese is appointed as the Commissioner in this case and whose remuneration shall be Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid directly to the Commissioner by the defendant.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Swapna (51 years) Udaya Bhavanam, Puthupally, Karthikappally Taluk, Alappuzha District

Defendants

Sudarsanan M R (66 years) Kaveri House, Thuruthikkara, Pyangarappilly P O, Mulamthuruthy, Ernakulam District

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure and demarcate the boundaries of the property.
Evidence:
the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of the surveyor is necessary to collect valuable inputs for a proper and fair adjudication of the above suit on merits.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
The request for a decree restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint A and B schedule properties.
Evidence:
the contention that all the issues have been settled and there is no question of fixation of boundary remains to be considered only after the trial.
Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Decree declaring the plaintiff's title over A schedule property.
Evidence:
additional relief to grant a decree declaring the plaintiff's title over A schedule property.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as the basis for the plaintiff's claim of ownership over plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Sale Deed No. 2492/2013
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document serves as the basis for the defendant's claim of ownership over plaint C schedule property.
Reference:
Sale Deed No. 2686/2013
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
The court considered the oral submissions made by both parties regarding the boundary disputes.
Reference:

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases