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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 261/2024

Case between Joji Joseph et al vs Sabu N Y et al regarding temporary injunction

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-06-18
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Joji Joseph and Reni Joji, are seeking a temporary injunction against the defendants, Sabu N Y and Varghese, regarding the obstruction of water flow and access to their property. The defendants are accused of illegally constructing a compound wall and obstructing drainage.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The petition for a temporary injunction was dismissed after finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case. The court determined that granting an injunction would cause irreparable harm to the defendants.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to show their claim was valid.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Joji Joseph (55 years) Bless Villa, Kandanad P O, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, Pin- 682305 Reni Joji @ Renimol Titus (52 years) Bless Villa, Kandanad P O, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, Pin- 682305

Defendants

Sabu N Y (50 years) Naduveetil, Kandanad P O, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District Varghese (65 years) Athithottathil, Chottanikkara P O, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Requested injunction to restrain the defendants from obstructing access and water flow.
Evidence:
Therefore, court is satisfied that the petition has no merits.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes ownership of plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves payment of tax for the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Initiates the complaint regarding obstruction and construction activities.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice issued to the 1st defendant restraining construction.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice issued to the 2nd defendant restraining construction.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Provides evidence regarding the condition of D schedule pathway and E schedule thondu.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Visual evidence regarding the properties in question.
Reference:
Ext.C1(b)

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam District
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases