Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No. 223/2025

Case between T Mohanan vs T Raveendran regarding temporary injunction for boundary wall construction

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-04-11
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

T Mohanan filed a petition against his brother T Raveendran seeking a temporary injunction to prevent Raveendran from constructing a boundary wall on their property. The case revolves around allegations of encroachment and the rights of way of both parties over a shared pathway.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court denied the petition for temporary injunction filed by T Mohanan against T Raveendran. The petition was dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and balance of convenience was not in favor of the plaintiff.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court denied the petition for temporary injunction filed by T Mohanan against T Raveendran. The petition was dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and balance of convenience was not in favor of the plaintiff.
Key Reasoning:
The defendant adequately demonstrated that the compound wall was constructed within his property boundaries and did not infringe upon the plaintiff's rights.
Why Defendant Won:
The defendant adequately demonstrated that the compound wall was constructed within his property boundaries and did not infringe upon the plaintiff's rights.
Supporting Evidence
The court found that the foundation for the compound wall was laid in 2005 and was constructed within the property of the respondent. The petitioner's claims of encroachment were unsubstantiated.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
T Mohanan
Party Age
72
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
T Raveendran
Party Age
75
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of Settlement deed no. 3441/2005, Land tax receipt, Rough Sketch showing the properties.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Lijo Joseph
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Nidhi Sam John
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Kevin Thomas
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
P Rahul
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Vineeth Komalachandran
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Abhina L
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Namitha Neethu Balachandran
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Temporary Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
A prayer for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from constructing the boundary wall.
Evidence:
Hence points are found against the petitioner.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Settlement deed no. 3441/2005 of Maradu SRO establishing the plaintiff's claim to property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Land tax receipt in respect of plaint A schedule property issued by Village office, Poonithura.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Rough Sketch showing the lie of plaint A and B schedule properties.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report in I A 3/25 providing details relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Rough Sketch accompanying the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Photograph
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Photographs included in the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(b)

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between T Mohanan vs T Raveendran regarding temporary injunction for boundary wall construction
Case Code Year
Case between T Mohanan vs T Raveendran regarding temporary injunction for boundary wall construction

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam District
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Tue, 04/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 04/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Garden View Apartment owners Association vs Ansal River Dale owners Association et al regarding Restoration Petition
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Shanoj R vs Joseph Augustin et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M/s Indo Quartz vs M/s Ray Engineering Pvt. Ltd. et al regarding petition under Order 38 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure.
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M/s. Canton Residency Pvt. Ltd. vs Kalamassery Municipality regarding dismissal of suit
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Mrs. Julie Sebastian vs SREECHAND SPECIALITY HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. regarding settlement of claims.
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won