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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No.1255/2017

Case between Nicemol Nishad alias Nice Nisha vs Mohanan regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-03-04
Duration
approximately-7 years 11 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The 2nd defendant, Mohanan, seeks a permanent prohibitory injunction to stop the plaintiff, Nicemol Nishad, from trespassing onto his property and preventing him from using it. The court was asked to appoint a Taluk surveyor to demarcate the property after the plaintiff allegedly demolished a compound wall.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the petition filed by the 2nd defendant for appointing a Taluk surveyor to demarcate property, finding no merit in it and imposing costs on the defendant.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, Petition is dismissed on costs of Rs.500/-.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Nicemol Nishad alias Nice Nisha (34 years years) Alappatt House, Vaikom Muhammed Basheer Road, Koonamtthai, Edappilly P O, Ernakulam, District- 682024

Defendants

Mohanan (65 years years) Madhukappally House, Ambalam Road, Koonamthai, Edappally- 24

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The 2nd defendant sought a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the plaintiff from trespassing into the plaint property.
Evidence:
Hence the court finds no merit in the petition.
Relief Type: Appointment of Taluk Surveyor
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The 2nd defendant requested to appoint a Taluk surveyor to measure and demarcate the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
This court does not find it necessary to demarcate the property by a Taluk surveyor for the proper adjudication of the suit.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Surrender Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the possession and enjoyment of the property by the 2nd defendant after the demise of their mother.
Reference:
No.1545/2014
Document Type: Local Inspection Report
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This report was marked as evidence during the hearing of the suit.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Exhibit
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
These exhibits were marked as evidence presented by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Exts.A1 to A6
Document Type: Exhibit
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
These exhibits were marked as evidence presented by the 2nd defendant.
Reference:
Exts.B1 and B2
Document Type: Exhibit
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
These exhibits were marked as evidence during the reopening of the plaintiff's evidence.
Reference:
Exts.A7, A7(a), (b)
Document Type: Commissioner Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This report was marked as evidence and relates to the local inspection conducted.
Reference:
Ext.C1 (a)
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Oral testimonies were provided by witnesses during the proceedings.
Reference:

Quick Facts

Location
Case Filed
Sat, 03/04/2017 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
70%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases