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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 1010 /2016

Case between C K Renji, Deepa Renji vs Padmakumari, Mohanan regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and counter claim for declaration and injunction.

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany.
Order Date
2025-03-29
Duration
approximately-8 years 5 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, C K Renji and Deepa Renji, are seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, Padmakumari and Mohanan, due to alleged obstruction of their right of way. The case revolves around a dispute regarding the width of a pathway permitted in a sale deed and various constructions made by the defendants.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to demolish their unauthorized constructions in the pathway, and granted a permanent prohibitory injunction against them, restraining any interference with the plaintiffs' use of the pathway.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Mandatory injunction to demolish unauthorized constructions and a permanent prohibitory injunction against interference.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs successfully established their right to a 3.8-meter-wide pathway based on the sale deed, which was not adequately challenged by the defendants.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms. Defendant is directed by mandatory injunction to demolish the construction having a width of 40 cm in B2 plot and the concrete ring in B1 plot within 3 months from date of order or plaintiff have every right to do so by remedy through court of law. Defendant is restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into plaint schedule property and cutting open a pathway or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs and from committing any waste therein.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

C K Renji (42 years years) Chaithanya, Brother’s Road, Vadakkumbhagom, Edappally North Village, Kanayannoor Taluk Deepa Renji (41 years years) Chaithanya, Brother’s Road, Vadakkumbhagom, Edappally North Village, Kanayannoor Taluk

Defendants

Padmakumari (56 years years) Kuzhikandathil House, Thekkumbhagom Desom, Thekkumbhagom Village, Poonithura P O, Kanayannoor Taluk Mohanan (60 years years) Kuzhikandathil House, Thekkumbhagom Desom, Thekkumbhagom Village, Poonithura P O, Kanayannoor Taluk

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendants are directed to demolish the construction in the B2 plot.
Evidence:
Defendant is directed by mandatory injunction to demolish the construction having a width of 40 cm in B2 plot and the concrete ring in B1 plot within 3 months from date of order or plaintiff have every right to do so by remedy through court of law.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendant is restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' property and rights.
Evidence:
Defendant is restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into plaint schedule property and cutting open a pathway or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs and from committing any waste therein.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendant is directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiff.
Evidence:
Defendant is directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiff.
Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Counterclaim raised by defendants seeking declaration on pathway width.
Evidence:
Counter claim is dismissed with costs.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the plaintiffs' ownership and rights to the property and pathway.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supports the plaintiffs' claim regarding the width of the pathway.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Photograph
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provided as evidence related to the condition of the pathway.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Building Plan
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Shows the approved construction plans relevant to the dispute.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Building Permit
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Validates the defendants' legal construction of their property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Acknowledgment of Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Provides context regarding the permits and properties involved.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Details the findings regarding the condition of the pathway.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Visual representation pertinent to the dispute over the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Further documentation of observations related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Visual evidence regarding the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Concludes findings relevant to the encroachment issues discussed.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type: Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
A plan that supports the court's findings in this judgment.
Reference:
Ext.C3(a)
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Testimonies provided by witnesses were referenced in court.
Reference:

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam, Kerala
Case Filed
Fri, 07/15/2016 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases