Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S No.386/2020

Case between Kuruvilla Mani vs T.M.Mathew regarding mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Judge
Smt. Jyothi Babu R.
Order Date
2025-02-19
Duration
approximately-4 years 7 months
Case Closed
Wed, 02/19/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves Kuruvilla Mani, the plaintiff, who claims obstruction caused by T.M.Mathew, the defendant, against the use of a private road. Kuruvilla seeks legal remedies to enforce access to the road as per previous agreements.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The suit is decreed in part, allowing the plaintiff a right of access over the private road. The defendant is ordered to refrain from obstructing this access.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The defendant shall not cause obstruction to the user of the plaint schedule private road having a width of 4.1 meter.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is decreed in part, allowing the plaintiff a right of access over the private road. The defendant is ordered to refrain from obstructing this access.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established the existence of a private way as per the agreement evidenced in the sale deed.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff established the existence of a private way as per the agreement evidenced in the sale deed.
Supporting Evidence
It could be concluded that the plaintiff could establish the existence of plaint schedule way having a width of 4.1 meter as mentioned in Exhibit A2 and the plaintiff has got right of easement over the said way.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed in part, as follows; The defendant shall not cause obstruction to the user of the plaint schedule private road having a width of 4.1 meter as mentioned in Exhibit A2 deed by the plaintiff and from committing waste or mischief therein.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Kuruvilla Mani
Party Age
51
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
T.M.Mathew @Biju
Party Age
59
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of sale deed No.1789/2010, Copy of correction deed No.3191/2011, Copy of Tax receipt.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Philson Mathews
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Namitha Philson
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Vijimon Kuruvilla
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Partly Granted
Description:
Plaintiff requested a mandatory injunction to remove obstruction caused by the defendant.
Evidence:
The relief of permanent prohibitory injunction can be allowed.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from obstructing the use of the road.
Evidence:
The defendant shall not cause obstruction to the user of the plaint schedule private road.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The plaintiff obtained title over 8.10 Ares of property as per this deed.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Correction Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Clarified the dimension of the road that facilitates access to the plaintiff's property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demonstrated that the plaintiff was paying land tax for the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Provided a report after visiting the property, verifying the condition and dimensions of the road.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Supplemented the commission report with a visual layout of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Judgment
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Presented prior judgment in related suit, establishing the history of the disputes over the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Documentation related to the plaintiff's reporting of issues before the police.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further evidence of complaints filed by the plaintiff regarding the case.
Reference:
Ext.A6

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Kuruvilla Mani vs T.M.Mathew regarding mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Kuruvilla Mani vs T.M.Mathew regarding mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction.

Quick Facts

Location
Kottayam
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Case Filed
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 12:00
Case Closed
Wed, 02/19/2025 - 12:00
From
Sat, 02/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 02/28/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Nattakom Service Co-Operative Bank et al vs Roy V.J. et al regarding Decree
Munsiff Court/Judicial First Class Magistrate -IV, Kottayam
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between N.M.Sivarajan vs George Varghese @ Georgekutty, Anil Varghese, Aliyamma regarding compromise petition.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between N.A.George et al vs T.C. Ipe et al regarding declaration and injunction
Principal Munsiff's Court, Kottayam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Abraham Philipose et al vs John Mathyas et al regarding injunction and fixation of boundary
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Surendran. T.U vs State of Kerala et al regarding default dismissal of suit
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won