Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No. 943 /2015

Case between Joseph Vakayil vs V K Jamal et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and declaration

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-03-26
Duration
approximately-9 years 8 months
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Joseph Vakayil is the plaintiff, seeking a permanent injunction against V K Jamal and others, who are interfering with his property rights regarding his car park and common areas. The defendants claim the plaintiff is illegally occupying common space and they seek to remove his modifications.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court partially decreed the suit, restraining the defendants from creating any impediments for the plaintiff’s ingress and egress to his property. However, other claims by the plaintiff were dismissed.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendants are restrained from creating any impediments for free ingress and egress to B schedule room.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court partially decreed the suit, restraining the defendants from creating any impediments for the plaintiff’s ingress and egress to his property. However, other claims by the plaintiff were dismissed.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established his right to access the B schedule room without obstruction.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff established his right to access the B schedule room without obstruction.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has become owner in possession of B schedule room by virtue of Ext A2. No other residents or the defendants have any right to hinder free ingress and egress to B schedule property.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is decreed partly with costs as follows: Defendants are restrained from creating any impediments for free ingress and egress to B schedule room.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Joseph Vakayil
Party Age
48
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
V K Jamal
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Ismail Jamal
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Naseer
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Jins Builders
Relation
Partnership firm represented by
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Babychan Jacob
Party Age
56
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of document no. 750/2003 of Sub registrar office, Ernakulam, Certified copy of document no. 5272/2005 of Sub registrar office, Ernakulam, Certified copy of document no. 2152/2000 of Sub registrar office, Ernakulam, Certified copy of document no. 2325/2004 of Sub registrar office, Ernakulam, True office copy of Petition of plaintiff to the Police Station.
Defendants Documents
Approved site with location plan.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
M S Unnikrishnan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Shahul Hameed Moopan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
T A Niyas
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
John Joseph (Roy)
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
K J George Kunnumpurath
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Restraining defendants from creating any impediments for free ingress and egress to B schedule room.
Evidence:
Court finds that plaintiff has every right for free ingress and egress to B schedule property.
Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Seeking a declaration that defendants cannot convert open common areas into covered structure.
Evidence:
No specific identification provided for the common area in the plaint.
Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought injunction against defendants regarding car park and common area.
Evidence:
Court concludes plaintiff does not have exclusive rights over common areas.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
Counter claim by defendants seeking to remove unauthorized structures.
Evidence:
Defendants failed to prove that they have any right over the area.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Certified copy of document
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves plaintiff's ownership of flat and car parking space.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Certified copy of document
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the purchase of B schedule room by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Certified copy of document
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supports the claim regarding the agreement for purchase.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Certified copy of document
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the parking rights claimed by defendants 5 and 6.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: True office copy of Petition
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Documents complaints made by the plaintiff regarding property issues.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: True office copy of Petition
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further complaints by the plaintiff to the police.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Acknowledgment Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirms receipt of a complaint by the police.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Property Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes ownership and maintenance of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Property Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further evidence of property ownership and tax payment.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type: Approved site with location plan
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Provides the layout and planning details related to property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Lawyer Notice and Postal Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Documents communications regarding property disputes.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Response to legal communications related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Detailed findings on property access and use.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Witness testimonies provided by both parties.
Reference:

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Joseph Vakayil vs V K Jamal et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and declaration
Case Code Year
Case between Joseph Vakayil vs V K Jamal et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and declaration

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Wed, 07/22/2015 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Sat, 03/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Mon, 03/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Mini Jolly vs Noel et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction.
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Jobin Thomas vs Thrikkakara Municipality et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between His Holiness Shrimad Raghavendra Thirtha Swami et al vs Venkatesh Shenoy et al regarding declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Santhosh P @ Santhoshkumar vs Suresh P.S, Mallika Shanmughan regarding fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Kochuthressia Thomas vs Gopalan, Kalidasan regarding recovery of possession and injunction.
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Defendant Won