Case Summary
The plaintiffs, legal heirs of Marakkar, are seeking a mandatory injunction to have the defendants shift their gate from one property boundary to another and a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent them from drawing services through the plaintiffs' property. The defendants failed to appear in court, resulting in a decree in favor of the plaintiffs.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Mandatory injunction directing the defendants to shift the gate and permanent prohibitory injunction against service connections.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is decreed directing the defendants to shift their gate and restraining them from drawing any service connections through the plaintiffs' property. The plaintiffs are also awarded costs of the suit.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The unchallenged proof affidavit and documents satisfactorily proved the plaint claim.
The unchallenged proof affidavit and documents satisfactorily proved the plaint claim.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The unchallenged proof affidavit and documents satisfactorily proved the plaint claim.
The unchallenged proof affidavit and documents satisfactorily proved the plaint claim.
Supporting Evidence
The unchallenged proof affidavit and documents would satisfactorily prove the plaint claim.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed by a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to shift the gate fixed at the eastern boundary of the plaint B schedule property having its opening into the A schedule property from the eastern boundary to the southern boundary of plaint B schedule property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Hameed
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Ashraf
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Johny
- Party Age
- 61
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Aji Johny
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Original sale deed no 19/1991 of SRO Thrikkakara, Certified copy of the sale deed 249/1986 of SRO Thrikkakara, Certified copy of the sale deed 1580/1965 of SRO Edapally, Photocopy of the complaint to the Assistant Police Commissioner, Thrikkakara.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- S.Shyam
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Anand P.D
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Peeyus A Kottam
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- R.G.Ragesh Chand
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Directed the defendants to shift the gate from the eastern boundary to the southern boundary of the plaint B schedule property.
Evidence:
The suit is decreed by a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to shift the gate fixed at the eastern boundary of the plaint B schedule property having its opening into the A schedule property from the eastern boundary to the southern boundary of plaint B schedule property.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Restrained the defendants from drawing any service connection through the A schedule property and obstructing development of the pathway.
Evidence:
The suit is decreed by a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from drawing any service connection, including water, electricity, cable or piped gas, through the A schedule property, and from obstructing the plaintiffs and other co owners of the plaint schedule property from developing the same by laying interlocking tiles or otherwise.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Entitled the plaintiff to the costs of the suit.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Original Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves the ownership and right of way related to the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Certified copy of the Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supports the claim regarding the plaint B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Certified copy of the Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provides evidence of legal claims related to the plaint schedule.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Photocopy of the Complaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Documents the dispute and the complaint filed by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A4
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 Hameed et al vs Johny et al regarding permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Hameed et al vs Johny et al regarding permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction