Case Summary
The plaintiff, Manoj, seeks a perpetual injunction against the defendants who are threatening to annex part of the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the disputed property and has provided evidence to support his case.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Perpetual injunction
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff granting a perpetual injunction against the defendants. The defendants are restrained from entering the plaintiff's property or demolishing the compound wall.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The evidence presented by the plaintiff went unchallenged, and the plaintiff proved his case for a perpetual injunction.
The evidence presented by the plaintiff went unchallenged, and the plaintiff proved his case for a perpetual injunction.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The evidence presented by the plaintiff went unchallenged, and the plaintiff proved his case for a perpetual injunction.
The evidence presented by the plaintiff went unchallenged, and the plaintiff proved his case for a perpetual injunction.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence tendered by PW1 and the documents marked as Ext.A1 and C1, C1(a) and C2, C2(a) stands unchallenged. No contra evidence adduced.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs as follows:- The defendants or anybody under them are restrained from entering forcefully into the plaint schedule property, or destroy the compound wall or foundation or gate situating on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property, or annex any portion of plaint schedule property to the property of the defendants, by way of perpetual injunction.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Manoj
- Party Age
- 44
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ambika Unnithan
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Paulose
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Beena Paulose
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Aiswaraya Paul
- Party Age
- 30
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vivek Paul
- Party Age
- 28
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of sale deed No.1007/2009 of SRO, Puthencruz
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sonnet Paul
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Ciju I.S.
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff requested to restrain the defendants from entering or damaging the property.
Evidence:
The defendants or anybody under them are restrained from entering forcefully into the plaint schedule property, or destroy the compound wall or foundation or gate situating on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property, or annex any portion of plaint schedule property to the property of the defendants, by way of perpetual injunction.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the sale deed proving the plaintiff's ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report submitted to the court relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch submitted alongside the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report submitted detailing the survey of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Survey plan submitted alongside the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Manoj vs Ambika Unnithan et al regarding perpetual injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Manoj vs Ambika Unnithan et al regarding perpetual injunction