Case Summary
The plaintiff Philomina seeks an injunction against the defendants Joy and others for encroaching on her property. The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was uncontested and ruled in her favor.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from widening the pathway and causing obstruction to the plaintiff.
Case Type
Injunction
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants for encroaching upon the plaintiff's property and obstructing her right to enjoy it.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff provided uncontested evidence supporting her ownership and peaceful possession of the property.
The plaintiff provided uncontested evidence supporting her ownership and peaceful possession of the property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff provided uncontested evidence supporting her ownership and peaceful possession of the property.
The plaintiff provided uncontested evidence supporting her ownership and peaceful possession of the property.
Supporting Evidence
From the uncontested evidence of the PW1, I am of the opinion that the case of the plaintiff stands proved. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence tendered by PW1.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: The defendants, their men or agents or anybody claiming under them are restrained by way of a decree permanent prohibitory injunction from widening the 1.2 meters wide pathway on the northern side of the plaint schedule property by encroaching into the plaint schedule property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Philomina
- Party Age
- 74
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Joy
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sheeba
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Dhaneej
- Party Age
- 37
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Dhanya
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kunjappan
- Party Age
- 80
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Document No. 288/2010, True copy of Tax Receipt
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- V. A Johnson
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Harikrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Cyriac Tom
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Naveen A Varkey
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Mallenathan M
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Anwar C. K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Aswathi Vakkayil
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Permanent prohibitory injunction from widening the pathway or making constructions in the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendants, their men or agents or anybody claiming under them are restrained by way of a decree permanent prohibitory injunction from widening the 1.2 meters wide pathway on the northern side of the plaint schedule property by encroaching into the plaint schedule property, concreting the same or making any constructions in the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing any obstruction to the plaintiff in constructing a compound wall.
Evidence:
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, their men or agents anybody claiming under them is passed restraining the said persons from causing any obstruction to the plaintiff in constructing compound wall on the northern and eastern boundaries of plaint schedule property.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified copy of document
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as evidence for the partition of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
True copy of Sketch
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is referenced as subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
True copy of Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows the payment of tax by the plaintiff, supporting ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Copy of judgment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This relates to a previous case which supports the plaintiff's claim.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
True copy of Complaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document pertains to a complaint filed regarding interference with property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Photograph
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the plaintiff's evidence and claims.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report is part of the evidence to support the court's decision.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This sketch is referenced in the decree to illustrate property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
The plaintiff was examined as PW1, providing oral testimony.
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Injunction
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Philomina vs Joy et al regarding injunction and consequential reliefs.
Case Code Year
Case between Philomina vs Joy et al regarding injunction and consequential reliefs.