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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 677/2021

Case between Karthika S vs B. Saji Kumar et al regarding Money Recovery

Court
The Court of the Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam
Judge
Rohit Nandakumar
Order Date
2024-10-21
Duration
approximately-4 years 11 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Karthika S and Libu Narayanan, sought to recover a security deposit of ₹4,50,000 from the defendants, B. Saji Kumar and Mrs. Viji Saji Kumar, due to issues regarding a lease agreement for a godown. The case centers around the defendants' failure to return the deposit after the plaintiffs vacated the premises.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for the recovery of the security deposit. The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not properly terminate the lease agreement, which was a critical factor in the case.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate proper termination of the lease agreement and lacked sufficient proof of their claims.

Judgment Evidence:

The suit is therefore dismissed. The parties shall suffer their respective costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Karthika S (32 years) Varasseril House, Muriyamangalam kara, Mamala P.O., Ernakulam - 682 305 Libu Narayanan (39 years) Varasseril House, Muriyamangalam kara, Mamala P.O., Ernakulam - 682 305

Defendants

B. Saji Kumar (Age not specified years) TC 2/2188 (4), Ampotty, Adarsh Nagar, AN 54-, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 004 Mrs. Viji Saji Kumar (Age not specified years) TC 2/2188 (4), Ampotty, Adarsh Nagar, AN 54-, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 004

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought to recover a sum of ₹4,50,000 along with interest from the defendants.
Evidence:
The court found that the reliefs as sought for by the plaintiff cannot be granted in the absence of proof of a proper termination of the lease agreement and any proper proof regarding the contents of the lease agreement.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Lease Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document outlines the terms and conditions for the lease of the godown, which is central to the plaintiffs' claims.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Bank statement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was intended to prove the payment of rent by the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Legal Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as a formal request for the return of the security deposit.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is the response from the defendants to the legal notice issued by the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Acknowledgment Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides proof of the plaintiffs' petition filed with the police.
Reference:
Ext.A5

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Mon, 11/11/2019 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases