Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Indira and Deepanjali, are seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, who are their close relatives and neighbors. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are attempting to unlawfully widen a pathway and encroach upon their property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to prevent any encroachment or alteration of their property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The evidence presented by the plaintiffs was unchallenged and supported their claims of illegal encroachment by the defendants.
The evidence presented by the plaintiffs was unchallenged and supported their claims of illegal encroachment by the defendants.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The evidence presented by the plaintiffs was unchallenged and supported their claims of illegal encroachment by the defendants.
The evidence presented by the plaintiffs was unchallenged and supported their claims of illegal encroachment by the defendants.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence tendered by PW1 and the documents marked as Ext.A1 to A4, and C1, C1(a) stands unchallenged. No contra evidence adduced.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs as follows:- The defendants, their men, agents, servants and anybody claiming under them, are hereby restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, from widening the pathway situated on the northern side of the plaint schedule property, and from demolishing, altering, damaging, or in any manner interfering with the north, south and west portions of the existing compound wall of the plaint schedule property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Indira
- Party Age
- 74
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Deepanjali
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Radhamani
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kanjana
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Nandakumar
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- H/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Jinesh Sugathan
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Arjun
- Party Age
- 27
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Will deed No. 125/20, Copy of Partition Deed No.816/1991, Land Tax receipt
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P T Geevarghese
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Rohan Roy
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sanjay S
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Ann Treesa Jojo
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are restrained from trespassing and interfering with the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendants, their men, agents, servants and anybody claiming under them, are hereby restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, from widening the pathway situated on the northern side of the plaint schedule property, and from demolishing, altering, damaging, or in any manner interfering with the north, south and west portions of the existing compound wall of the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs are entitled to realize the costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are entitled to realise the costs of the suit from the defendants.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified copy of Will Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves ownership of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Copy of Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the historical ownership and partitioning of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Photographs
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Visual evidence related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirms that the plaintiffs are maintaining tax responsibilities for the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Commission report and Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Provides additional context and verification of the property boundaries as per the court's requirements.
Reference:
Ext.C1 and C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Indira vs Radhamani regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Indira vs Radhamani regarding permanent prohibitory injunction