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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 193 OF 2015

Case between Jemsheena vs Raheem et al regarding injunction

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF TIRUR
Judge
Sri. JANKISH NARAYANAN
Order Date
2019-07-22
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Jemsheena filed a suit seeking an injunction against Raheem and others who allegedly obstructed her access to a way leading to her property. The defendants contended that no such way existed and sought to dismiss the suit.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court found that the way claimed by the plaintiff does not exist, and consequently, the plaintiff has no sustainable cause of action. The suit was dismissed without cost.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff could not prove the existence of the path described in the plaint.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed without cost.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Jemsheena (27 years years) Eanintepurakkal House, Pachattiri amsom, Paravanna desom, Tirur Taluk

Defendants

Raheem (25 years years) Sayyid Koya @ Muthu (22 years years) Kadeeja @ Kajjeevi (58 years years) Eaninte Purakkal House, Pachattiri amsom, Paravanna desom, Tirur Taluk Asya (50 years years) Eaninte Purakkal House, Pachattiri amsom, Paravanna desom, Tirur Taluk

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Request for a perpetual injunction to prevent the defendants from obstructing the B schedule way.
Evidence:
Therefore, she is not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Request for mandatory injunction against the defendants regarding the use of the B schedule way.
Evidence:
Therefore, she is not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Gift Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document proving ownership of the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt supporting the plaintiff's claim regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt supporting the plaintiff's claim regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Plaint in OS 61/2015
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Document related to the defendant's claims and prior litigation concerning property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Court's report regarding the commissioner's findings on the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Court plan illustrating the details of the commissioner's inspection.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Court's report regarding further findings from the commissioner's inspection.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type: Commission Plans
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Plans submitted by the commissioner related to property use.
Reference:
Ext.C4
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commissioner's findings regarding obstruction on the property.
Reference:
Ext.C5
Document Type: Commission Plans
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Plans submitted depicting the state of the property as per the commissioner's observations.
Reference:
Ext.C6

Quick Facts

Location
Case Filed
Mon, 06/08/2015 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases