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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S.No. 1141/2017

Case between Gupthan Namboothiri vs Gupthan Namboothiri regarding fixation of northern boundary and mandatory injunction.

Court
II Additional Munsiff Court
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2024-08-16
Duration
approximately-7 years 0 days

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves Gupthan Namboothiri filing a suit against Molly and Manju Bose regarding boundary fixation and drainage obstruction. The defendants contest the authority of Gupthan's power of attorney holder to act on his behalf.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court ruled that the power of attorney holder cannot depose on behalf of the plaintiff as he lacks personal knowledge of the subject matter of the dispute.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The court determined that the power of attorney holder does not have the necessary personal knowledge to testify on behalf of the plaintiff.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence the power of attorney holder cannot depose on behalf of the plaintiff in the instant case.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Gupthan Namboothiri (74 years) Chathamangalath Mana,Udayamperoor.P.O.,Manakunnam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, Pin – 682 307 Bhavadasan Namboothiri (39 years) Chathamangalath Mana, Udayamperoor.P.O., Manakunnam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, Pin 682 307

Defendants

Molly (60 years) Chuthamparambil, Udayamperoor.P.O, Manakunnam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, Pin 682 307 Manju Bose (39 years) Chuthamparambil, Udayamperoor.P.O, Manakunnam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, Pin 682 307

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Mandatory injunction to not to obstruct the drainage provided in the land.
Evidence:
the contention is that such a stipulation was retained while transferring property to the predecessor in interest of the defendant, and there is no averment that power of attorney holder also has the knowledge about the same.

Documents & Evidence

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Sun, 01/01/2017 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases