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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No.415/2021

Case between Kochuthressia Thomas vs Gopalan, Kalidasan regarding recovery of possession and injunction.

Court
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-02-20
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Kochuthressia Thomas is seeking recovery of possession and an injunction against Gopalan and Kalidasan due to an obstruction on a pathway. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants have blocked access to her property, which she purchased and has a right to use as per the sale deed.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit and the defendants' counter claim. The plaintiff failed to prove that the constructions by the defendants infringed upon her property rights.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff was unable to prove that the construction constituted an encroachment on her property.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, 1. Suit is dismissed with costs. 2. Counter claim is dismissed with costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Kochuthressia Thomas (51 years years) Kattumpurath House, Toshin Villa, Eroor P O (N), Ayyampillykavu Road, Ernakulam- 682306.

Defendants

Gopalan (74 years years) Thundiyil House, Raphel Master Lane, Kaattithara Road, Maradu P O, Ernakulam-682304. Kalidasan (71 years years) Thundiyil House, Raphel Master Lane, Kaattithara Road, Maradu P O, Ernakulam-682304.

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought recovery of possession of plaint C schedule property.
Evidence:
Hence issue No 1 is found against the plaintiff.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to remove blockade and restore pathway.
Evidence:
Hence plaintiff is not entitled to claim decree of mandatory injunction.
Relief Type: Prohibitory Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought a prohibitory injunction against the defendants regarding the pathway.
Evidence:
Hence injunction cannot be granted against the true owner with respect to usage of plaint B schedule pathway.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Defendants sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against further trespassing.
Evidence:
Hence this issue is found against the counter claim plaintiffs.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original Sale deed no. 1627/2014 establishes ownership of the plaintiff over property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Land Tax receipt issued by Village office Maradu supports ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Village Officer's Report
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Letter along with report from the Village Officer regarding the Plaint Schedule Properties provides context to the claims.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Photograph
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Photograph referenced but subject to proof, used to support the defendants' position.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report provides inspection details relevant to the property dispute.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch included as part of the commission report to illustrate the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Witness testimonies from PW1 to PW3 support the plaintiff's case.
Reference:

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
100%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases