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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 450/2025

Case between Annie Telma D'Silva vs TJ Job et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-11-28
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Annie Telma D'Silva is seeking a temporary injunction against TJ Job and Margret Steffy to prevent them from obstructing her possession of a parcel of land. The case involves claims of ownership and use of the property, with allegations of unauthorized construction and encroachment by the defendants.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court granted the petitioner's request for a temporary injunction against the defendants, preventing them from interfering with her possession of the property until the suit is resolved.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Temporary injunction against the defendants
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner established a prima facie case regarding her possession of the property.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, petition is allowed. Respondents are restrained by an order of temporary injunction from interfering with or obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint A schedule or cause any obstruction to use of plaint A schedule property by petitioner and her men and from parking their vehicles and from committing any waste therein till the disposal of suit.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Annie Telma D'Silva (null years) Aalunkappadathu House, Vaduthala P O, Cochin- 682 023, Ernakulam

Defendants

TJ Job (64 years) Thottilparambil House, Vaduthala P O, Cochin - 682 023, Ernakulam Margret Steffy (34 years) Thottilparambil House, Vaduthala P O, Cochin - 682 023, Ernakulam

Reliefs

Relief Type: Temporary Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Respondents are restrained from interfering with or obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint A schedule property.
Evidence:
In the result, petition is allowed. Respondents are restrained by an order of temporary injunction from interfering with or obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint A schedule.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the ownership of the property by the plaintiff's father.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Patta
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the plaintiff's claim of ownership by referencing the purchase certificate of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document indicates prior complaints made to the Corporation regarding the condition of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
These photographs serve as evidence regarding the condition and use of the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
These photographs provide visual evidence related to the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Writ Petition
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document is referenced in relation to the defendants' claims regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Wedding Invitation Card
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document is referenced but lacks specific relevance provided in the judgment.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
These photographs are produced to support the defendants' claims.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Document
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document supports the defendants' claim of continuous enjoyment of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This report provides findings related to the physical status of the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases