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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No.1585/2019

Case between His Holiness Shrimad Raghavendra Thirtha Swami et al vs Venkatesh Shenoy et al regarding declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Judge
SMT. REEJA R. NAIR
Order Date
2025-02-22
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, His Holiness Shrimad Raghavendra Thirtha Swami, the Sole Trustee of a charitable trust, sought a declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, Venkatesh Shenoy and Mohan Shenoy, claiming exclusive use of a pathway. The defendants contested the plaintiff's rights, asserting their own claims to the pathway.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court declared that the defendants have no right over the plaint B schedule pathway and issued a permanent prohibitory injunction against them from obstructing the plaintiff's use of the pathway.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from making any obstruction to the use of plaint B schedule pathway
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established exclusive rights over the pathway through earlier sale deeds and demonstrated a legal claim to its use.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows; (I) It is declared that the defendants have no right to enjoy plaint B schedule pathway for their ingress and egress and to put up a gate from their property so as to have access to the said pathway. (ii) The defendants and men under them are restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from making any obstruction to the use of plaint B schedule pathway or altering its present lie and nature thereby causing inconvenience to the use of B schedule by the plaintiff.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

His Holiness Shrimad Raghavendra Thirtha Swami (64 years) Sudharsan Mandir, Pudukkalavattom, Elamakkara, Kochi, 682 026

Defendants

Venkatesh Shenoy (55 years) Govindan Parambu, Pudukkalavattom Temple Road, Near West Nada of Siva Temple, Opposite of Masjid Road, Pudukkalavattom, Elamakkara, Kochi, 682 026 Mohan Shenoy (50 years) Govindan Parambu, Pudukkalavattom Temple Road, Near West Nada of Siva Temple, Opposite of Masjid Road, Pudukkalavattom, Elamakkara, Kochi, 682 026

Reliefs

Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Declaration that the defendants have no right to enjoy plaint B schedule pathway.
Evidence:
It is declared that the defendants have no right to enjoy plaint B schedule pathway for their ingress and egress and to put up a gate from their property so as to have access to the said pathway.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from obstructing the use of plaint B schedule pathway.
Evidence:
The defendants and men under them are restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from making any obstruction to the use of plaint B schedule pathway or altering its present lie and nature thereby causing inconvenience to the use of B schedule by the plaintiff.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original of power of attorney for the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No. 5266/2002 of SRO, Edappally, establishing ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No. 2111/2003 of SRO, Edappally, supporting the claim of ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No. 1613/2004 of SRO, Edappally, reinforcing ownership claims.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No. 6113/1993 of SRO, Edappally, relevant to the property history.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Police Complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of the police complaint dated 14.12.2019 regarding unlawful actions by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report prepared by Adv. Aneesh K.R. regarding the state of plaint B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Photos (27 Nos.) documenting the conditions of the plaint B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: CD
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
CD produced along with Commission report containing relevant visual evidence.
Reference:
Ext.C1(b)

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Charitable Trust

Similar Cases