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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 626 /2022

Case between Aseeb vs Nahas et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-06-23
Duration
approximately-3 years 21 days

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Aseeb, a senior citizen, is seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent the defendants from obstructing his access to a pathway that he claims is essential for ingress and egress to his property. The defendants, relatives of the plaintiff, contest the existence of the claimed pathway and the plaintiff's rights over it.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, concluding that he failed to prove any legal right over the claimed pathway. The defendants were found to be the true owners of the property.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff could not substantiate his claim to an easementary right, as it was not proven that any such right existed.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is dismissed with costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Aseeb (62 years) Afsal Mandiram, Nettoor P O, Maradu Village, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam, District, Pin- 682040

Defendants

Nahas (60 years) 6124, Prestige Courtyard, Marine Drive, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District, Pin- 682918 Fawas (38 years) Afsal Mandiram, Nettoor P O, Maradu Village, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District, Pin- 682040 Umaiba (64 years) Afsal Mandiram, Nettoor P O, Maradu Village, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District, Pin- 682040 Fanseena Fayas (35 years) Nadakkaparambil, Changabuzha Nagar, Kalamassery, Ernakulam District, Pin- 682033

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from obstructing his use of the plaint B schedule pathway.
Evidence:
Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the injunction as claimed.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document establishes the plaintiff's ownership of the A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document relates to the 1st defendant's purchase of land.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Registered Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document records the agreement for the formation of a common pathway.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document serves as evidence of land tax payment related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The document identifies the plaint B schedule property and its boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The document accompanies the commission report to illustrate the pathway.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Thu, 06/23/2022 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases