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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 314/2021

Case between Mohammed Faisal et al vs Mulavukad Grama Panchayath regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-10-24
Duration
approximately-4 years 1 month

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves plaintiffs Mohammed Faisal and his wife Shejinamol seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the Mulavukad Grama Panchayath to prevent construction obstructing their access to a public road. Plaintiffs claim ownership and access rights to their property, while the Panchayath argues it holds valid authority to construct an Anganvadi on the disputed land.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, finding that the plaintiffs did not prove their claim of direct access to the Panchayath road. It ruled that the Panchayath has the right to construct the Anganvadi building.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The court found that the plaintiffs did not have a valid claim of direct access and their assertions regarding ownership were not substantiated by evidence.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is dismissed with costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Mohammed Faisal (50 years years) Ollapallil House, Mulavukad P O, Kochi – 682 504 Shejinamol (38 years years) Ollapallil House, Mulavukad P O, Kochi – 682 504

Defendants

Mulavukad Grama Panchayath (Age not specified years) Panchayath Office, Keraleshwaram, Temple Road, Mulavukad P O, Kochi – 682 504

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from constructing any structure on the northern side.
Evidence:
The court found that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Property Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
A property tax receipt for the plaintiffs' property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Property Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Another property tax receipt for the plaintiffs' property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Basic Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
A basic tax receipt showing the plaintiffs' legal interest in the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The certified copy of Sale Deed No. 3537/2016, establishing the plaintiffs' title.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Asset Register
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
A certified copy of the relevant page of the asset register demonstrating ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
A commission report relevant to the court's findings.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
A commission report dated 03.09.2022 considered as part of the court's record.
Reference:
Ext.C2

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Panchayat

Similar Cases