Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. 261/2024

Case between P.C Mathew vs Mathew Mathew et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Judge
Smitha Susan Mathew
Order Date
2025-10-31
Duration
approximately-1 year 28 days
Case Code No.
261
Case Closed
Fri, 10/31/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

P.C Mathew is the plaintiff seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against Mathew Mathew and George C.J. regarding property boundary disputes. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants threatened to demolish boundaries and encroach on his property.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court granted a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from trespassing on the plaintiff's property and demolishing the boundary.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is granted restraining the defendants from trespassing on plaint schedule item No.1 and 2 properties, demolishing the northern boundary of item No.1, constructing retaining wall of the road by encroaching item No.2 property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court granted a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from trespassing on the plaintiff's property and demolishing the boundary.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The evidence showed that defendants were attempting to destroy the boundary kayyala and widen the road, which was not permissible.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The evidence showed that defendants were attempting to destroy the boundary kayyala and widen the road, which was not permissible.
Supporting Evidence
The oral evidence and documentary evidence shows that defendants are attempting to destroy the boundary kayyala and widen the road. This evidence remains unrebutted.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows:- 1 A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is granted restraining the defendants from trespassing on plaint schedule item No.1 and 2 properties, demolishing the northern boundary of item No.1, constructing retaining wall of the road by encroaching item No.2 property.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
P.C Mathew
Party Age
82
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Mathew Mathew
Party Age
56
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
George C.J.
Party Age
56
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Public in 3rd Ward of Chirakkadvau Grama Panchayat
Party Age
54
Relation
Represented by
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of partition deed No. 663/1965, Tax receipts dated 16.10.2024.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Alex J Edackattu
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Aloysius John Madathinkam
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing and destroying property boundaries.
Evidence:
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is granted restraining the defendants from trespassing on plaint schedule item No.1 and 2 properties.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Cost of the suit to be paid by defendants.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is entitled to get the cost of the suit from defendants 1 and 2 and their assets.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of partition deed No.663/1965 establishes plaintiff's claim over the properties.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt dated 16.10.2024 for item No.1 supports ownership claim.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt dated 16.10.2024 for item No.2 supports ownership claim.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Mahazar
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Mahazar prepared by Commissioner provides evidence in the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Sketch prepared by Commissioner aids in understanding the property layout.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kanjirappally
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S.
Case Code Year
2024

Quick Facts

Location
Kanjirappally
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kanjirappally
Case Filed
Sat, 08/03/2024 - 12:00
Case Closed
Fri, 10/31/2025 - 12:00
From
Mon, 09/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 10/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Elsamma Kuriakose vs The Chief Manager (Authorised Officer) regarding dismissal of suit.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Johnson Joseph vs Raveendran @ Kunjumon et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Unnikrishnan K vs Mohanan regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Hellen Joseph vs Joji Thomas regarding realisation of money
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sheela Raju et al vs P.K. Madhu et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won