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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No 973/2014

Case between Biju Antony vs George et al regarding injunction

Court
II Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam
Judge
Maneesha K Bhadran
Order Date
2024-03-22
Duration
approximately-9 years 9 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Biju Antony is the plaintiff seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against George and others. The case concerns the obstruction of a pathway used by the plaintiff to access his property, with the defendants allegedly constructing a wall that obstructs this access.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting him the right to use the pathway and ordering the removal of the wall constructed by the defendants. The defendants are also restrained from obstructing the plaintiff's access to his property.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from altering the nature and condition of plaint B schedule pathway and obstructing ingress and egress of plaintiff to plaint A schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff proved he has an easement by grant over the pathway.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms: 1) Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from altering the nature and condition of plaint B schedule pathway and obstructing ingress and egress of plaintiff to plaint A schedule property.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Biju Antony (43 years) Chakkalakkal House, Nettor.P.O., Kochi – 682 040

Defendants

George (73 years) Kochuparambil House, Nettor.P.O., Kochi­682 040 Joby (37 years) Kochuparambil House, Nettor.P.O., Kochi – 682 040 Xavier (46 years) Kalathiparambil House, Nettor.P.O., Kochi – 682 040

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from altering the nature and condition of plaint B schedule pathway.
Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms: 1) Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from altering the nature and condition of plaint B schedule pathway and obstructing ingress and egress of plaintiff to plaint A schedule property.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendants are directed by a mandatory injunction to remove the plaint C schedule wall.
Evidence:
2) Defendants are directed by a mandatory injunction to remove the plaint C schedule wall, within two months failing which plaintiff can seek to execute the same through court at the expense of defendants.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendants are directed to pay the costs of the suit to plaintiffs.
Evidence:
3) Defendants are directed to pay the cost of the suit to plaintiffs.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Plaintiff's father purchased property and right of way over plaint B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed under which 1st defendant purchased the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Plaintiff obtained property from his father.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Basic Tax receipt issued from Village Office, Maradu.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Printout of Photographs
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Photographs relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Rough sketch of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Resurvey Sketch
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Attested copy of resurvey sketch issued from Village Officer, Maradu.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Photographs relevant to the defendants' claim.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Attested copy of sale deed of 2003 pertaining to the property.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Consent
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of consent relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report filed by Adv. T.K. Babu.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch filed by Adv. T.K. Babu.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Oral evidence of PW1 and PW2.
Reference:

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Tue, 06/10/2014 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases