Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.619/2019

Case between Thomas vs Rajani Anil et al regarding Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri.Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-06-26
Duration
approximately-6 years 18 days
Case Code No.
619
Case Closed
Thu, 06/26/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Thomas, the plaintiff, is seeking a permanent injunction against Rajani Anil and Anil, the defendants, to prevent them from trespassing on his property and demolishing a compound wall. The property is described as being distinctly separated from the defendants' properties.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction against the defendants to prevent them from trespassing on the property and demolishing the compound wall.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction preventing defendants from trespassing and demolishing the compound wall.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction against the defendants to prevent them from trespassing on the property and demolishing the compound wall.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established a prima facie case supported by oral and documentary evidence.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff established a prima facie case supported by oral and documentary evidence.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, as evidenced by the unchallenged oral testimony of PW1 and PW2, supported by documentary evidence.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result; the suit is decreed as follows: (a) Let the defendants and all persons claiming under them be perpetually restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from demolishing the existing compound wall.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Thomas
Party Age
56
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Rajani Anil
Party Age
32
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Anil
Party Age
36
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified Copy of Sale Deed No.3387/95, Original tax receipt No.T 0306500, Copy of Re-Survey Plan No.584/2
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Bhagavath Singh.C.S
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.L.Satheesh
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain defendants from trespassing and demolishing the compound wall.
Evidence:
the suit is decreed as follows: (a) Let the defendants and all persons claiming under them be perpetually restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from demolishing the existing compound wall.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain defendants from creating a new pathway through the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
Let the defendants and all persons claiming under them be perpetually restrained from creating or attempting to create any new pathway through the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Recovery of costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs of the suit from the defendants and their assets.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The certified copy of Sale Deed No. 3387/95 establishes the ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The original tax receipt supports the ownership and tax status of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Re-Survey Plan
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The copy of the Re-Survey Plan No. 584/2 depicts the boundaries and layout of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The commission report provides a fair and impartial layout of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The sketch indicates the nature and layout of the property, corroborating the claims made by the plaintiff.
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
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2019

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Wed, 06/12/2019 - 12:00
Case Closed
Thu, 06/26/2025 - 12:00
From
Sun, 06/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Mon, 06/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Union Bank of India et al vs Midhun. M regarding rejection of plaint
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Purushothaman Pillay Divakaran et al vs Deepti Sivan regarding injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sreenath.S vs Thankarajan et al regarding dismissal of suit as not pressed
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sindhu.S et al vs Lalitha et al regarding withdrawal of suit
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Vanitha Sureshbabu Thilak vs Babu Chettiyar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won