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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 108/2021

Case between Job John P vs Unnichan @ George regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Rohit Nandakumar
Order Date
2024-07-01
Duration
approximately-3 years 26 days

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Job John P and Gincy George are the plaintiffs seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant Unnichan @ George. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant is encroaching upon their right of way, which is essential for vehicle access to their properties.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court found that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently establish their claim to the right of way. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The evidence on record did not sufficiently establish any right, title or possession of the plaintiffs over the specified property.

Judgment Evidence:

In view of the discussions made above, I am of the view that there is no proper identification of the plaint B schedule pathway and that the evidence on record is not sufficient to establish any right, title or possession of the plaintiffs over plaint B schedule property. In such circumstances, Issues I to III are to be found against the plaintiffs and are found so.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Job John P (46 years years) Periyapuram Veetil, Kandanad Desam, Manakunnam Village, Kanayannoor Taluk – 682 305. Gincy George (45 years years) Periyapuram Veetil, Kureekad Post, Kanayannoor Taluk– 682 301.

Defendants

Unnichan @ George (80 years years) Vaishyam Parambil, Kandanad, Thiruvankulam, Ernakulam – 682 305.

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant.
Evidence:
In view of the discussions made above, I am of the view that there is no proper identification of the plaint B schedule pathway and that the evidence on record is not sufficient to establish any right, title or possession of the plaintiffs over plaint B schedule property.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1266/2017 of SRO, Tripunithura.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of land tax receipt issued by Manakunnam Village Office.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 2377/2013 of SRO, Tripunithura.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of land tax receipt issued by Manakunnam Village Office.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 3212/1999 SRO, Tripunithura.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Photograph
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Photographs marked subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.B1 to B7
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 2914/2003.
Reference:
Ext.B8
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 263/1996.
Reference:
Ext.B9
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1242/1996.
Reference:
Ext.B10
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 4212/2006.
Reference:
Ext.B11
Document Type: Document
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy of Document No. 2822/2008.
Reference:
Ext.B12
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1266/2017.
Reference:
Ext.B13
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1666/1995.
Reference:
Ext.B14

Quick Facts

Location
Case Filed
Thu, 07/01/2021 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases