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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 1029/2022

Case between Graceland Charitable Trust vs Molly Alexander regarding realization of money

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-08-18
Duration
approximately-4 years 2 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Graceland Charitable Trust, a non-profit organization, has sued Molly Alexander for the recovery of outstanding payments for services provided at a residential complex. The defendant disputes the legitimacy of the Trust and refuses to pay the claimed amount.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court found that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, concluding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any payment for the services rendered. The suit was dismissed with costs.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The court established that the plaintiff did not have the authority to demand payment as there was no lawful agreement between the parties.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Graceland Charitable Trust (Age not specified years) Door No. 9/213 C2, Pangarapilly, Mulanthuruthy- 682314

Defendants

Molly Alexander (Age not specified years) Apartment No. E1, Graceland Foundation, Paingarappilly, Mulanthuruthy, Ernakulam- 682314

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The plaintiff sought to recover outstanding dues for services rendered to the defendant.
Evidence:
The court is satisfied that the plaintiff is not entitled for realization of money as claimed for.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Computer printout of bill
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The plaintiff submitted these documents as evidence of the outstanding amounts due for services rendered.
Reference:
Ext.A1 to A15
Document Type: True copy of the letter
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The defendant used this document to communicate that she had already paid dues to the Owners Association and does not recognize the Trust as a service provider.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: True copy of the reply letter
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The defendant sent this letter to reiterate her position of not making any payments to the Charitable Trust.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: True copy of the letter
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document further declares that the Charitable Trust is not recognized as a proper trust and is pending adjudication.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Certified Copy of the Order
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The order from the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal supports the defendant's assertion regarding the illegality of the Trust's claims.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Witness testimonies were presented to support both the plaintiff's and defendant’s claims.
Reference:

Quick Facts

Location
Case Filed
Tue, 06/01/2021 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
100%

Involved Entities

Charitable Trust

Similar Cases