Case Summary
The plaintiff, A.J.Robert, is seeking a perpetual prohibitory injunction against the defendants, Lawrence and L. Juliyot Thresya, to prevent them from trespassing on his property and committing waste. The case involves disputes over property ownership and the right to draw water from a well located on the plaint schedule property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed as the court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to an equitable relief of injunction. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.
Key Reasoning:
The evidence revealed that the plaintiff failed to prove the allegations regarding trespass and the right to injunction was not established.
The evidence revealed that the plaintiff failed to prove the allegations regarding trespass and the right to injunction was not established.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The evidence shows that the alleged cause of action is not true and the evidence reveals that the suit is only filed to cause obstruction to the defendants from drawing water from the well in the plaint schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances parties are directed to bear their costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- A.J.Robert
- Party Age
- 49
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Lawrence
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- L. Juliyot Thresya
- Party Age
- 36
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of settlement deed No. 1289/10 of SRO Chalappuram, Land tax receipt, Certificate issued by HDFC Limited, Calicut
Defendants Documents
Copy of settlement deed No. 584/2010 of SRO, Chalappuram, Copy of land tax receipt
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. K.B. Sahasranaman
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- G. Manohar lal
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Ifthikar Malik
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Sebastian.M.J
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Request for a perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property
Evidence:
In the result, suit is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances parties are directed to bear their costs.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of settlement deed No. 1289/10 of SRO Chalappuram
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Land tax receipt
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certificate issued by HDFC Limited, Calicut
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of settlement deed No. 584/2010 of SRO, Chalappuram
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of land tax receipt
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report submitted by Advocate Vidyakala.P.D
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report submitted by advocate C.T. Sivanandan
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report submitted by advocate C.T. Sivanandan
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type:
Survey Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commissioner's Sketch
Reference:
Ext.C3(a)
Document Type:
Commissioner's sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commissioner's Sketch
Reference:
Ext.C3(b)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between A.J.Robert vs Lawrence et al regarding perpetual prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between A.J.Robert vs Lawrence et al regarding perpetual prohibitory injunction