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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. .1531/2019

Case between Jobin Thomas vs Thrikkakara Municipality et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Judge
SMT. REEJA R. NAIR
Order Date
2025-06-03
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Jobin Thomas, the plaintiff, is seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against Thrikkakara Municipality and Abdul Razak P.K. The case revolves around unauthorized demolition of property boundaries and potential construction disputes.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court granted a permanent prohibitory injunction in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaintiff's property and demolishing its compound wall.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established his legal right to the petitioned property and demonstrated a threat against its use.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows; The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into plaint A schedule property and also from demolishing its western compound wall and from putting up any constructions in plaint A schedule property.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Jobin Thomas (48 years) D009, Gopalan Millenium Habitat, Near CMR IT College, Kundalahalli, AECS Layout, Bangalore North, Marathahalli Colony, Karnataka State, Pin-560037

Defendants

Thrikkakara Municipality (Age not specified years) NGO Quarters - Mavelipuram Road, Thrikkakara, Kakkanad Post, Kerala, PIN- 682030 Abdul Razak P.K. (55 years) Puthenpurackal House, Thrikkakkara, PIN-682021

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing and demolishing the plaintiffs' property.
Evidence:
The plaintiff has proven his lawful possession over the plaint A schedule property and that such possession is interfered and threatened by the defendants.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff entitled to realize costs from the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to realize costs from the defendants.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves the plaintiff's ownership over the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes tax payment for the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Visual evidence of the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3(a) to A3(d)
Document Type: CD
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Contains original recordings of the plaint A and B schedule properties.
Reference:
Ext.A3(e)
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Details findings from the inspection of the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Illustrates the layout of the plaint A and B schedule properties.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Visual evidence supporting the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(b) to C1(g)
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Testimony of the plaintiff regarding the illegal acts of the defendants.
Reference:

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Municipality

Similar Cases