Case Summary
The plaintiffs, including Nirmala Ramankutty, are seeking a mandatory injunction against the defendants, Zahida Crockery and others, regarding their access to a common area in a commercial building. The dispute revolves around the defendants allegedly trespassing on the plaintiffs' common property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 shall remove the lock and chain installed by defendant No. 1 over plaint B schedule common area within 1 month.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to remove the lock and chain obstructing access to a common area. Costs are awarded to the plaintiffs from the defendants.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs have proven their shared rights to the common area and the defendants' actions were found to infringe upon those rights.
The plaintiffs have proven their shared rights to the common area and the defendants' actions were found to infringe upon those rights.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs have proven their shared rights to the common area and the defendants' actions were found to infringe upon those rights.
The plaintiffs have proven their shared rights to the common area and the defendants' actions were found to infringe upon those rights.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs, being co-owners of other building room situated within plaint A schedule property, are having right of common possession and enjoyment of the common spaces situated within plaint A schedule property including plaint B schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows, 1. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 shall remove the lock and chain installed by defendant No. 1 over plaint B schedule common area within 1 month.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nirmala Ramankutty
- Party Age
- 67
- Relation
- D/o late Madhava Warrier
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- N.M.Vijayan
- Party Age
- 79
- Relation
- S/o late Madhava Warrier
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- N.M.Bharathan
- Party Age
- 84
- Relation
- S/o late Madhava Warrier
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mini Prabhakaran
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- W/o late Prabhakaran
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Praveen Prabhakar
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- S/o late Prabhakaran
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Zahida Crockery
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- Represented by Zahida
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Najeema
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- D/o K.A.Haroon
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Naseera
- Party Age
- 35
- Relation
- D/o K.A.Haroon
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- S.A.Jaleel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Danny
Plaintiffs Documents
Original power of attorney, Power of attorney, Original Partition deed no. 351/84 of Ernakulam SRO, Certified copy of the Judgment in OS 1683/97 of Munsiff Court, Ernakulam.
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of the document no. 885/12 of Ernakulam SRO.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Ramakumar K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M.Manoj Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Arun Baby Stephen
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Renjith
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Ramprasad Unni T
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Raynold Fernendez N
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Manu George Kuruvilla
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Amal George
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 shall remove the lock and chain installed by the defendant No. 1 over plaint B schedule common area within 1 month.
Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows, 1.Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 shall remove the lock and chain installed by defendant No. 1 over plaint B schedule common area within 1 month.
Relief Type:
Execution of Orders
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff entitled to execute the removal of the lock and chain through court process if the defendants fail to comply.
Evidence:
In the absence of defendant Nos. 1 to 3, removing the lock and chain within the stipulated period, the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the same executed through the process of this court.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff entitled for the costs of the suits from defendant Nos. 1 to 3.
Evidence:
Plaintiff shall be entitled for the costs of the suits from defendant Nos. 1 to 3.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original power of attorney for the first plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Power of attorney for the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original Partition deed no. 351/84 of Ernakulam SRO establishing ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Judgment
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Certified copy of the Judgment in OS 1683/97 of Munsiff Court, Ernakulam concerning the same defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Judgment
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Certified copy in AS 243/01 of Hon’ble II Additional District Court, Ernakulam concerning the same defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Judgment
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Certified copy in RSA 391/04 of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala concerning the same defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of the letter issued by the 1st plaintiff to the 1st defendant requesting key access.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Document
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy of the document no. 885/12 of Ernakulam SRO regarding ownership claims.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Photograph
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Photograph related to the case, possibly showing the disputed area.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission Report filed interpreting the layout and access of the disputed area.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch accompanying the commission report identifying the disputed property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Oral depositions of witnesses PW1 to PW3 providing testimony related to the case.
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between Nirmala Ramankutty et al vs Zahida Crockery et al regarding mandatory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Nirmala Ramankutty et al vs Zahida Crockery et al regarding mandatory injunction