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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 1431/2018

Case between Joseph Peter vs Sri. Sadik M.K. regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM
Judge
SMT. REEJA R. NAIR.
Order Date
2025-07-10
Duration
approximately-7 years 6 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Joseph Peter is the plaintiff claiming ownership of a property through a settlement deed from his father. The defendant, Sri. Sadik M.K., denies the plaintiff's claims, asserting he has legal ownership of the property and has initiated construction on it.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish ownership and possession of the property in question.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff did not prove a clear title or identifiable property, and the defendant was found to be in lawful possession.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Joseph Peter (62 years) Pallath House, Pallinada, St. John’s Baptish Road, Palarivattom, Kochi Ernakkulam District-682 025

Defendants

Sri. Sadik M.K. (Age not specified years) Alanaparambil House, K.R.P. 2/462/15, Karippai Road, North Kalamassery P.O., Ernakulam District, 683 104

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Request for a decree to restrain the defendant from trespassing and construction on the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The plaintiff has failed to prove ownership and lawful possession over the plaint schedule property.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the plaintiff's claim of ownership over the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax Receipts
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demonstrates the plaintiff's payment of taxes related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2 series
Document Type: Location Plan Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirms the location and presumed possession of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Possession Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further supports the claim of possession by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Encumbrance certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes that there are no encumbrances on the property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Authorizes PW1 to act on behalf of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Initially considered for evidence, but later deemed unreliable.
Reference:
Ext.C1 series

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Fri, 01/05/2018 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases