Case Summary
The plaintiff, Mrs. Fathima Saharlal, claims ownership of a property and seeks an injunction against the defendants, who allegedly blocked access to her building. The defendants deny the allegations and counter that the plaintiff has no right to the road in front of her property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
Defendants demonstrated lawful ownership and right over the private road.
Defendants demonstrated lawful ownership and right over the private road.
Judgment Evidence:
Therefore in the factual matrix surrounding the suit, it is found that the plaintiff has no manner of right to restrain the defendants by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and to get a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the steel tubes erected before the entrance of the building in the plaint schedule property which undoubtedly belongs to the defendants.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Mrs. Fathima Saharlal (46 years years)
2FA, Kent Illam, Puthiya Road, Vennala, Ernakulam, Kerala – 682 028.
Defendants
Jaleel T.I (Age not specified years)
Thikkootathil house, Peechinga parambu road, Koonamthai, Edapally North P.O,Kochin – 682 02.
Abdul Latheef (Age not specified years)
Thykoodathil house, Medical College, Mattakkad Road, Kalamassery, Ernakulam – 682 503.
Manager Hotel Relax Tower (Age not specified years)
Hotel Relax Towers, Ismail Towers, Toll Junction, Edapally, Kochi – 682 024.
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
To restrain the defendants from blocking the entrance to the plaintiff's building
Evidence:
the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish her case even by a degree of preponderance of probability, and hence she is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
To direct the defendants to remove the steel tubes erected before the entrance
Evidence:
the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish her case even by a degree of preponderance of probability, and hence she is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of ownership of the property in question
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of tax paid for the property
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Basic Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of basic tax payment after mutation
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Document showing the settlement of property rights
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Evidence of ownership and rights over the private road
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Police Complaint
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Document regarding the dispute related to the road access
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
FIR
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Document detailing the police investigation concerning the dispute
Reference:
Ext.B4