Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No. 254 / 2023

Case between Kunjumol Pradeep Jagtap vs Shajan Thomas regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
IN THE COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-08-23
Duration
approximately-2 years 6 months
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Kunjumol Pradeep Jagtap, is a tenant seeking an injunction against the defendant, Shajan Thomas, to prevent forcible eviction from her rented premises. The plaintiff claims that the defendant is attempting to evict her unlawfully, while the defendant contends that the tenancy has ended and eviction is justified.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant from forcibly evicting her. The defendant was also directed to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction from forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant from forcibly evicting her. The defendant was also directed to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff was found to be in lawful possession of the property and the defendant attempted unlawful eviction without adhering to legal procedures.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The apprehension put forth by the plaintiff from the attending circumstances appears to be realistic. ... A person in possession can be evicted only in due process of law.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms. 1) Defendant is restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from forcibly evicting plaintiff from plaint schedule property other than taking action through process of law. 2) Defendant is directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiff.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Kunjumol Pradeep Jagtap
Party Age
54
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Shajan Thomas
Party Age
54
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of Rental agreement, Copy of message, Copy of rent paid through Google Pay, Copy of rent deposit slip
Defendants Documents
Original of Power of Attorney

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
P S Abdul Khader
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Madhusoodanan S
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Lipimol G
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Ganga Menon
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Ajith Karthikeyan
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant from forcibly evicting her from the premises.
Evidence:
Defendant is restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from forcibly evicting plaintiff from plaint schedule property other than taking action through process of law.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff was awarded costs of the suit from the defendant.
Evidence:
Defendant is directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiff.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Rental Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was referenced to establish the terms of the tenancy agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Message
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This message was cited as evidence of the defendant's demand for the plaintiff to vacate the premises.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Rent Payment Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was used to show proof of rent paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Rent Deposit Slip
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This slip was referenced as additional proof of rent payment made by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document was mentioned to establish the authority of the defendant's witness in the proceedings.
Reference:
Ext.B1

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Kunjumol Pradeep Jagtap vs Shajan Thomas regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Kunjumol Pradeep Jagtap vs Shajan Thomas regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Sat, 02/25/2023 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Fri, 08/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 08/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between T.O Abraham et al vs T.O Aleyas et al regarding settlement of the suit
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between Prakash Pai, et al vs Saju, et al regarding undisclosed matter
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Nithya vs Babu et al regarding Dismissal of Listed Case
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Kunju Bava vs C. A Abdulla regarding specific performance of agreement and consequential reliefs
The Court of the Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Ammini M.N et al vs Sindhu et al regarding undisclosed matter
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won