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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No . 74/2025

Case between Dr. Saju Joseph vs Ramlu Alias Ramla et al regarding injunction

Court
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Rohit Nandakumar
Order Date
2025-06-13
Duration
approximately-0 years 0 days

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Dr. Saju Joseph is the plaintiff who has ownership and possession over the property in question. The defendants are accused of constructing an illegal shed obstructing access to the property.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court granted a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from constructing in a manner that affects access to the plaintiff's property and also awarded costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction and costs of the suit
Case Type
Injunction
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The evidence presented by the plaintiff was found credible and proved the case.

Judgment Evidence:

The defendants are restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from putting up any construction in the road frontage portion of the plaint schedule property in manner that interferes with the ingress and egress into the plaint schedule property.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Dr. Saju Joseph (63 years) Thekkumpurath, Chelad P.O, Kothamangalam Taluk, 686 681.

Defendants

Ramlu Alias Ramla (45 years) Pulikuzhi House, Thrikkakara Desom, Kananayanoor Taluk, Ernakulam 682 021. Nadirsha (48 years) Seethi Pulikuzhi House, Thrikkakara Desom, Kananayanoor Taluk, Ernakulam 682 021.

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendants are restrained from putting up any construction in the road frontage portion of the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendants are restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from putting up any construction in the road frontage portion of the plaint schedule property in manner that interferes with the ingress and egress into the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit from the defendants.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Sale Deed bearing No. 2644/2005 submitted as evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt issued by Vazhakkala Village submitted as evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Site Approval and Building Permit
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Site approval and building permit issued by Thrikkakara Municipality submitted as evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notarized copy of Power of Attorney submitted as evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A4

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases