Case Summary
C.V.Suman, the plaintiff, claims to be the owner of a flat in Royal Saphire and seeks relief against the defendants for failure to install promised amenities and for interference with his parking rights. The defendants deny these claims, asserting that the plaintiff has no legal entitlement to the parking slot and amenities.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled against the plaintiff, dismissing his claims for mandatory and prohibitory injunctions related to the flat and parking slot. The plaintiff was found not entitled to the reliefs sought.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to the reliefs sought, with the court recognizing defendants' compliance with possession and management responsibilities.
The plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to the reliefs sought, with the court recognizing defendants' compliance with possession and management responsibilities.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to the reliefs sought, with the court recognizing defendants' compliance with possession and management responsibilities.
The plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to the reliefs sought, with the court recognizing defendants' compliance with possession and management responsibilities.
Supporting Evidence
Thus, what follows from the aforesaid discussions is that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case which entitles him the relief of mandatory injunction to complete the installation of amenities.
Judgment Evidence:
Thus, in the result, the suit is dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- C.V.Suman
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M.D.Unnikrishnan
- Party Age
- 64
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M.Nandakumar
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M/s Royal Projects & Enterprises
- Relation
- Represented by
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of the Agreement for sale dated 06.08.18, Copy of the sale deed no. 1613/I/18 of SRO Mulanthuruthy dated 14.09.18.
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of the sale deed no. 343/I/2022 of SRO, Tripunithura, Copy of the car parking allotment letter in respect of car park no. 32.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Shinu J Pillai
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Suja S
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Mariya Rajan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Lekshmi Sumukhan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Nesmal Diwan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Rajesh V.R
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sandeep S
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- B.Padmakumar
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- R.Sudheer
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a decree for mandatory injunction to complete the installation of amenities.
Evidence:
The plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case which entitles him the relief of mandatory injunction.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff requested a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with enjoyment of a parking slot.
Evidence:
In view of the totality of the attending circumstances discussed above, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is entitled for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Agreement for sale
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The plaintiff relied on this document to contend that space for car parking was promised to be allotted to him.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This deed shows the details of the property purchased by the plaintiff but does not mention a car parking slot.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Photographs of parking slots
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
These photographs were marked subject to proof related to the parking slots in question.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This certificate was provided as supporting evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Affidavit
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This affidavit filed by the plaintiff served as an additional piece of evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Advertisement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The advertisement was marked to show the amenities promised which the plaintiff claimed were not fulfilled.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document was used by the defendants to show that the car parking slot was transferred to another party.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Car parking allotment letter
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This letter confirmed that car parking slot No. 32 was allotted to another owner.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This deed was marked by the defendants to support their claims regarding property transfers.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Car parking allotment letter
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Another allotment letter relevant to car parking.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report detailed the conditions of the parking facilities and other amenities.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This sketch accompanied the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between C.V.Suman vs M.D.Unnikrishnan, M.Nandakumar, M/s Royal Projects & Enterprises regarding injunction and claims related to flat ownership.
Case Code Year
Case between C.V.Suman vs M.D.Unnikrishnan, M.Nandakumar, M/s Royal Projects & Enterprises regarding injunction and claims related to flat ownership.