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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 864/2020

Case between Jayadevi et al vs Surendran et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
THE I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Padmakumar.G.
Order Date
2024-03-26
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

This case involves a dispute over the use of a pathway adjacent to the plaintiffs' property. The plaintiffs claim the right to a pathway for ingress and egress, while the defendants contend there is no such pathway as described.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court found that the plaintiffs were unable to prove their case regarding the right to the pathway they claimed. Therefore, the suit was dismissed without costs.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs could not produce sufficient evidence to support their claim of a pathway.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Jayadevi (60 years) Kecheri house, Manakunnam, Nadakavu, Kanayannur Taluk, Thripunithura, Ernakulam District – 682 307 Greeshma (34 years) Kecheri house, Manakunnam, Nadakavu, Kanayannur Taluk, Thripunithura, Ernakulam District – 682 307 Ginish (32 years) Kecheri house, Manakunnam, Nadakavu, Kanayannur Taluk, Thripunithura, Ernakulam District – 682 307

Defendants

Surendran (63 years) Kecheri house, Manakunam, Kanayannur Taluk, Thriupunithura, Ernakulam District – 682 307 Chandran Nair (64 years) cheri house, Manakunam, Kanayannur Taluk, Thriupunithura, Ernakulam District – 682 307 Kanakamma (60 years) Kecheri house, Manakunam, Kanayannur Taluk, Thriupunithura, Ernakulam District – 682 307 Radha (59 years) Kecheri house, Manakunam, Kanayannur Taluk, Thriupunithura, Ernakulam District – 682 307

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to restrain them from obstructing the pathway.
Evidence:
Hence, issue No.1 is found against the plaintiff.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is referred to as the basis for the plaintiffs' claim over the A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Photograph
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This photograph is mentioned as supporting evidence for the claim.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document is referenced by the defendants to contest the claims of the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Location Sketch
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This sketch was produced by the defendants to show the layout and access to the properties, contradicting the plaintiffs' claims.
Reference:
Ext.B2

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam District
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases