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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No.834/2017

Case between Jimmy Panachicken vs Kusumam Michael regarding realization of money for damages and compensation

Court
THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. REEJA R. NAIR.
Order Date
2024-08-05
Duration
approximately-7 years 6 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

This case involves a financial dispute between the plaintiff, Jimmy Panachicken, and his brother, the defendant, Kusumam Michael. The plaintiff claims damages due to a complaint filed by the defendant that hindered a property sale agreement.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant, as the plaintiff's claims were not substantiated.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to prove his case and did not provide adequate evidence to support his claims.

Judgment Evidence:

Therefore, in the above circumstances, it cannot be said that there is defamation and the plaintiff suffered losses and damages as claimed by him entitling him to get damages from the defendant. Hence these issues are found against the plaintiff.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Jimmy Panachicken (57 years years) Panachickel House, Koothattukulam Kara, Koothanukulam Village now residing at "LINK LAXMAN', Karithala Desom, Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk Jijimol George (50 years years) 8A 'LINK LAXMAN, Valanjambalam, Ernakulam Village, Kanayarnnur Taluk, Ernakulam P.O.

Defendants

Kusumam Michael (59 years years) Ittipetta House, Palarivattom P.O, Pin-682024, Edappally South Village, Kanayannur Taluk

Reliefs

Relief Type: Damages
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Claimed compensation for losses incurred due to defendant's actions.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is not entitled to get compensation for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as mental agony and Rs.2,00,000/- for damages to the reputation.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Claimed recovery of a total sum of Rs.8,85,000/- including interest.
Evidence:
Hence, these issues are found against the plaintiff.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original of sale agreement dated 24/01/2017 executed between the plaintiff and one Mr. Sunny.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Account Statement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of the statement of account with SBT Koothattukulam Branch.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of complaint filed before the Maintenance Tribunal, Muvattupuzha.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Flight Tickets
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of flight tickets (3 Nos.) produced to show expenses incurred.
Reference:
Ext.A7 series
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of lawyer notice.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Reply notice.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type: Certified copy of Order
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Certified copy of the order in the complaint before the Maintenance Tribunal.
Reference:
Ext.B1

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Tue, 01/24/2017 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases