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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 878/2023

Case between Jobin K. Antony et al vs Josy Kochouseph et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Rohit Nandakumar
Order Date
2025-03-21
Duration
approximately-1 year 0 days

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Jobin K. Antony and Jobymol Jacob are the plaintiffs seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against Josy Kochouseph and Georgekutty Kochouseph, the defendants. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants are trying to construct a gate that would encroach upon their property rights.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction, ruling that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief sought due to insufficient evidence to identify the property in question.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to provide adequate evidence to substantiate their claim for an injunction.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed. The plaintiffs are directed to suffer their costs to the suit.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Jobin K. Antony (53 years years) Kurisummoottil House, Pipeline Road, Thrikkakara P.O, 682 021. Jobymol Jacob (52 years years) Kurisummoottil House, Pipeline Road, Thrikkakara P.O, 682 021.

Defendants

Josy Kochouseph (around 47 years years) Arakkal House, Arakkal Line -2, Pipeline Road, Thrikkakara P.O, Kochi – 682 021. Georgekutty Kochouseph (around 55 years years) Arakkal House, Arakkal Line -2, Pipeline Road, Thrikkakara P.O, Kochi – 682 021.

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Request for a decree to restrain the defendants from installing a gate on the southern part marked as the road of the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to reliefs as sought for.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked as evidence to support the plaintiffs' claim regarding ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked as evidence to demonstrate the plaintiffs' purchase and ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Marked as evidence to clarify the boundaries of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.X1

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Sun, 09/03/2023 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
70%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases