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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 239/2021

Case between Geetha Unniskrishnan et al vs State of Kerala et al regarding declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
THE I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M.
Order Date
2024-08-07
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration and a permanent prohibitory injunction regarding their easement rights over a strip of land needed for access to their property. The case involves multiple parties, including the State of Kerala and various governmental bodies.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction as they failed to establish the necessary claims regarding easement rights over the disputed property.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to prove their ownership or easement rights.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Geetha Unniskrishnan (63 years years) 30/1755, Lakshmi Mandhiram, M.G.Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 011 Satya R Menon (69 years years) 30/1755, Lakshmi Mandhiram, M.G.Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 011 Satheesh R Menon (59 years years) 30/1755, Lakshmi Mandhiram, M.G.Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 011

Defendants

State of Kerala (Age not specified years) represented by District Collector, Ernakulam The District Collector (Age not specified years) First floor civil station, Kakkanad, Ernakulam – 682 030 The Tahsildar (Age not specified years) Ernakulam, Kanaynnur, Park Avenue, Near Subhash Part, Marine Drive, Kochi, Kerala – 682 011 The Secretary, Kochi Municipal Corporation (Age not specified years) Marine Drive, Kochi, Kerala – 682 011

Reliefs

Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a decree of declaration for easement rights over the B schedule property.
Evidence:
Therefore, the plaintiffs are found not entitled for a decree of declaration that the plaintiffs had acquired right by way of easement on plaint B schedule property.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants regarding the use of the B schedule property.
Evidence:
Consequently, the plaintiff is found not entitled for the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as sought for.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Power of Attorney executed by the 3rd plaintiff in favor of the 1st plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Will
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of will no. 318/03.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Release deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of Release deed 3325/1986.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Other Document
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of sale deed no 357/1113.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of Tax receipt.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Various Tax receipts to prove payment for the property.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Order
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of order from the Tahsildar, Kanayannur.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of sketch.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission Report filed by Adv. Alex M Jose.
Reference:
Ext.C1

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Fri, 01/01/2021 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Government

Similar Cases