Case Summary
Manoj. K .Thomas is the plaintiff seeking a temporary injunction against Saji Murikattu Varghese and Reena Saji. The case involves allegations that the defendants violated a prior decree by altering the plaintiff's property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Temporary injunction granted against the defendants restraining any alterations to the plaintiff's property and pathway.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from altering the property and pathway until the final disposal of the case.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established a prima facie case and demonstrated that the defendants' actions could lead to irreparable injury.
The plaintiff established a prima facie case and demonstrated that the defendants' actions could lead to irreparable injury.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff established a prima facie case and demonstrated that the defendants' actions could lead to irreparable injury.
The plaintiff established a prima facie case and demonstrated that the defendants' actions could lead to irreparable injury.
Supporting Evidence
The Commissioner’s report confirms that the defendants have demolished the wall and altered the route. These acts are beyond the scope of the limited easement recognised in the prior decree.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, I.A. No. 2/2025 in O.S. No. 346/2025 is allowed with costs. The defendants are hereby restrained by a temporary injunction from making any construction, demolition, digging, widening, cutting of soil or alteration of any nature in plaint item No.1 property until disposal of the suit.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Manoj. K .Thomas
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Saji Murikattu Varghese
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Reena Saji
- Party Age
- 59
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K. Anilkumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Abraham Philip Pampady
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Temporary Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendants are restrained from making any construction, demolition, or alteration in the plaint items.
Evidence:
I.A. No. 2/2025 in O.S. No. 346/2025 is allowed with costs.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The plaintiff asserts ownership of the property based on the Sale Deed No. 3111/2008.
Reference:
null
Document Type:
Commissioner Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The Commissioner inspected the property and submitted a detailed report confirming the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the destruction of the boundary wall and alterations made by the defendants.
Reference:
null
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
O.S.
Case Code Year
2025