| Niyamam AI

Displaying 766 - 770 of 21881

District

Court Establishment

Public case category

Case Summary

Parties/Entities involved(eg: Bank, Panchayath, temple, Mosque etc.)

Case between K.S.Suseeladevi @ Suseela vs Seetha et al regarding mandatory as well as permanent prohibitory injunction

Civil Suit

O.S No.261/2020

Vaikom Taluk

2025-02-21

approximately-4 years 2 months

Plaintiff

View Full Details

Case between Kamala Veni et al vs Rajan et al regarding injunction and fixing the boundaries.

Civil Suit

OS No. 77/2020

Vaikom

2025-02-27

approximately-4 years 6 months

Plaintiff

View Full Details

Case between Santhosh vs Pushkaran et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Civil Suit

O.S No.95/2021

Vaikom

2025-02-27

approximately-3 years 10 months

Defendant

View Full Details

Case between Xavier.N.J. vs Jayakumar.P.K. regarding realisation of money.

Civil Suit

OS No. 136/2021

Vaikom

2025-02-27

approximately-5 years

Plaintiff

View Full Details

Case between Thankappan vs Jineesh.P.U regarding fixation of boundary.

Civil Suit

O.S No. 105/2022

Vaikom

2025-02-27

approximately-2 years 9 months

Plaintiff

View Full Details

Historical Outcome Trends

Based on analysis of similar cases in Kerala Munsif Courts

AI & Machine Learning Estimate

These figures are produced by statistical and machine-learning analysis of past court judgments. They are not legal advice and not a prediction about your own case. Every case turns on its own facts — please consult a qualified lawyer before making any decision.

49%

Success Rate for Plaintiff

Based on 21,803 similar cases

Key Insights

Documentary Evidence Strength High Impact

Average Case Duration 3.7 years

Settlement Likelihood 12%

Common Winning Factors:

Commission Report (in 1214 cases)
Sale deed (in 964 cases)
Postal receipt (in 953 cases)
Tax receipt (in 826 cases)
Lawyer Notice (in 804 cases)

Plaintiff Won: 10751
Defendant Won: 9603

9639

Cases Failed

Primary Reasons

29%

Top Reason Occurrence

Common Failure Reasons

Learn why cases like yours failed so you can avoid mistakes

Default Due to Non-Payment of Batta

Plaintiffs frequently failed to pay necessary fees, leading to case dismissals for default.

Found in 29 cases (29%) High Impact

Lack of Evidence Presented

Failure to provide evidence proving respondents' financial means resulted in multiple cases dismissed.

Found in 23 cases (23%) High Impact

Absence of the Petitioner

Cases were often dismissed due to the petitioner's absence during court proceedings.

Found in 19 cases (19%) Medium Impact

No Steps Taken in Case

Many cases were dismissed as plaintiffs failed to take necessary procedural steps.

Found in 18 cases (18%) Medium Impact

How to Strengthen Your Case

Gather all documentary evidence (title deeds, receipts, contracts) before filing
Ensure filing is within limitation period - consult lawyer about deadlines
Prepare witnesses thoroughly and ensure their statements are consistent
Maintain complete chain of ownership documents with no gaps
Follow all procedural requirements and court timelines strictly

Need More Details?

View complete analysis of failed cases in your category

Kerala Civil Court Judgments Database

Public User

Legal Professional

similar cases search

Historical Outcome Trends

Key Insights

Common Winning Factors:

Common Failure Reasons

Default Due to Non-Payment of Batta

Lack of Evidence Presented

Absence of the Petitioner

No Steps Taken in Case

How to Strengthen Your Case

Need More Details?