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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 708 of 2021

Case between Julia Luiz et al vs Smt. Thilothamma Sukumaran et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Rejani Thankappan
Order Date
2024-02-29
Duration
approximately-2 years 6 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Julia Luiz and Shimon Luiz, seek to prevent the defendants from interfering with their property rights over a water-logged area. The case revolves around attempts by the defendants to trespass and alter the flow of water impacting the plaintiffs' property.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit is dismissed by the court as it found no substantial evidence to support the plaintiffs' claim for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
Defendants established that the suit was barred by the law of res judicata and that the plaintiffs failed to prove any wrongdoing by them.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Julia Luiz (57 years) SF1 Rose Dale Apartments, Artillery Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008 Shimon Luiz (25 years) SF1 Rose Dale Apartments, Artillery Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008 Dennis Luiz (56 years) Cherupunathil house, Kadavanthara P.O, Ernakulam, Pin 682 020

Defendants

Smt. Thilothamma Sukumaran (75 years) Pantheekulathil House, Vallarpadam P.O, Pin 682 504 Smt. Sumathi Velayudhan (73 years) Karippayil House, Mulavukadu P.O, Pin 682 504 Smt. Thankamani Sasidharan (69 years) Nikathithara House, Narackal P.O, Pin 682 505 Smt. Meenakshi Rajan (66 years) Koliot Nikarthil House, Mulavukadu P.O, Pin 682 504 Smt. Sobha Mani (62 years) Thengathara House, Njarakkal P.O, Pin 682 505

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs sought permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from opening a sluice.
Evidence:
Hence the plaintiffs have no right to restrain the defendants herein while they were made an attempt to construct a sluice from their property.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Certified copy of Re-Survey sketch
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Serves as a visual representation of the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Commissioner Report
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Reports on the condition of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Certified copy of decree
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Details the judicial findings relevant to property rights.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Certified Copy of Judgment
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Contains prior judgments affecting the defendants' claims.
Reference:
Ext.B2

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Mon, 09/06/2021 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
70%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases