Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No.101/2014

Case between Devassy alias Thomas vs V.P. Rajamma et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
II Additional Munsiff Court
Judge
Smt. Maneesha K Bhadran
Order Date
2024-03-27
Duration
approximately-10 years 3 months 20 days
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Devassy alias Thomas, is seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, V.P. Rajamma and Ramachandran, who are his neighbors. The dispute centers around the defendants attempting to trespass and reclaim the plaintiff's property.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court has decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaintiff's property and from obstructing the construction of a boundary wall.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from trespassing into plaintiff's B schedule property and reclaiming any portion of the property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court has decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaintiff's property and from obstructing the construction of a boundary wall.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The unchallenged oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff showed that the defendants attempted to increase the width of the pathway.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The unchallenged oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff would show that defendants have attempted to increase the width of the pathway. The apprehension of plaintiff is well founded and in the absence of any denial evidence, I am satisfied that plaintiff is entitled for a decree.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms. 1) Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into plaint B schedule property, reclaiming any portion of the property on the west of the 4 links wide pathway used by them, widening the same and also from obstructing plaintiff in constructing a boundary wall at the western side of the pathway.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Devassy alias Thomas
Party Age
71
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
V.P. Rajamma
Party Age
51
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Ramachandran
Party Age
58
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 63/1/1968, Certified copy of Sale deed No. 1206/1964, Copy of Kreya Certificate No. 2183 of 1977, Photocopy of the Sale Deed No. 2000/90, Copy of the police complaint submitted by the plaintiff before the sub inspector of Police, Cheranelloor.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Abraham.P.George
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
M.K.Robin Raj
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Anush.A.R.
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
M.K. Dileepan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
S. Karthik Menon
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from trespassing into B schedule property and obstructing the plaintiff in constructing a boundary wall.
Evidence:
Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into plaint B schedule property, reclaiming any portion of the property on the west of the 4 links wide pathway used by them, widening the same and also from obstructing plaintiff in constructing a boundary wall at the western side of the pathway.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendants are directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiff.
Evidence:
Defendants are directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiff.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
These exhibits are various documents supporting the plaintiff's ownership and right to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1 to A6
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The commission report outlines the nature and condition of the properties in dispute.
Reference:
Ext.C1 series

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 Devassy alias Thomas vs V.P. Rajamma et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Devassy alias Thomas vs V.P. Rajamma et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Thu, 03/27/2014 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Fri, 03/01/2024 - 12:00
To
Sun, 03/31/2024 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between T.O Abraham et al vs T.O Aleyas et al regarding settlement of the suit
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between Prakash Pai, et al vs Saju, et al regarding undisclosed matter
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Nithya vs Babu et al regarding Dismissal of Listed Case
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Kunju Bava vs C. A Abdulla regarding specific performance of agreement and consequential reliefs
The Court of the Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Ammini M.N et al vs Sindhu et al regarding undisclosed matter
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won