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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 343/2016

Case between Jose P.U vs Suliakha et al regarding mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction and fixation of boundary

Court
I Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam
Judge
Sri. Padmakumar.G.
Order Date
2024-01-19
Duration
approximately-7 years 11 months 12 days

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves Jose P.U, the plaintiff, seeking an injunction against Suliakha and others. The plaintiff claims ownership and peaceful possession of the property, which was allegedly encroached upon by the defendants.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court found in favor of the defendants in case OS 310/2016, fixing boundaries and issuing mandatory injunctions relating to the property. The plaintiff's suit OS 343/2016 was dismissed.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The boundaries and rights over the properties were correctly established based on surveyed evidence.

Judgment Evidence:

OS 343/2016 is dismissed with costs and OS 310/2016 is decreed with specific directions on property boundaries.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Jose P.U (50 years years) Kunnumpurath house, Varapetty P.O, Elangavam Kara, Kothamangalam, Ernakulam District.

Defendants

Suliakha (64 years years) Valamkottil house, Eriyakkatuumoola, Thrikkakara P.O, Pin – 682 021. Ummukulsu (48 years years) Valamkottil house, Eriyakkatuumoola, Thrikkakara P.O, Pin – 682 021. Thahira (46 years years) Valamkottil house, Eriyakkatuumoola, Thrikkakara P.O, Pin – 682 021. Kunjumuhammed (44 years years) Valamkottil house, Eriyakkatuumoola, Thrikkakara P.O, Pin – 682 021. Abdul Jaleel (42 years years) Valamkottil house, Eriyakkatuumoola, Thrikkakara P.O, Pin – 682 021.

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Requested a mandatory injunction to construct a boundary wall.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs sought a decree of mandatory injunction to construct the compound wall illegally demolished by the defendants.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Requested a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent defendants from trespassing.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men from trespassing into the property of the plaintiff.
Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Partly Granted
Description:
Boundary of the properties in question was fixed.
Evidence:
The boundary of A B and C schedule in the suit is fixed as per the Ext.C3(a) sketch.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document serves as proof of the agreement for sale of land between the plaintiff and the original owners.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Lease Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the lease agreement under which the plaintiff conducts his business.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demonstrates ownership regarding the sale of a portion of land related to the claim.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Asserts details of the sale pertaining to the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provides evidence of tax payment for the property, supporting the plaintiff's claim.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Establishes the ownership of the defendants over certain properties as per family partition.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Details the sale of land from the plaintiffs' predecessor to the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Further establishes the land transactions between the predecessors.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Shows a sale transaction involving the defendants and helps support their position.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Proves that the defendants are paying tax, indicating their possession and rights.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Interim Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The court's report on the property measurement relevant to the suits.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Interim Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Continues the court's assessment of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Final report filed by the advocate commissioner detailing findings on the property.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Visual representation of the property boundaries as per commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C3(a)
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Various witnesses provided oral testimony relevant to the case.
Reference:

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam District
Case Filed
Sun, 02/07/2016 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases