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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 180/2024

Case between Josey et al vs Gracy et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M.
Order Date
2025-01-23
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Josey, Michael, and Antony, claim ownership of a property from their late grandfather, alleging that their share was misallocated and that they are being denied possession by the defendants, Gracy and Joicy, who are related to their late uncle. They seek a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants for trespassing and alienation of said property.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the petition for a temporary prohibitory injunction as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their exclusive possession and a prima facie case. The balance of convenience was found in favor of the defendants.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The petitioners failed to demonstrate exclusive possession of the property and suppressed material facts related to the ownership and transfer of the property.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Josey (50 years years) Thekkumpuram, Trikkakara, Kennedymukku, Kochi – 21 Michael (52 years years) Thekkumpuram, Trikkakara, Kennedymukku, Kochi – 21 Antony (60 years years) Thekkumpuram house, Edakkattuvayal, Kaippattur P.O, Kochi – 13 Poly (48 years years) Chelipparambil house, Kombaramukku, Mattancherry, Kochi – 2

Defendants

Gracy (60 years years) Karukapalli house, Pulikkillam road, Chembumukku, Cochin – 30 Joicy (24 years years) Karukappally house, Pulikkilam road, Chembumukku, Cochin – 30

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The petitioners sought a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from trespassing on the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
Therefore, the petitioners failed to put forth a prima facie case in their favour. Balance of convenience is also found in favour of the respondents.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice was issued by the plaintiff to Joseph @ Kunjappan regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice is a reply from Joseph @ Kunjappan concerning the plaintiffs' claim on the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the allocation of property among the heirs of late Varuthutty.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This report was submitted by the advocate commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C1

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
70%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases