Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS No.179/2019

Case between Rathnamma vs Shajan regarding temporary injunction

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, PERUMBAVOOR
Judge
Smt. Sumey Chandran
Order Date
2025-06-26
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves Rathnamma and her son Biju as plaintiffs against defendants Shajan and Ravi, concerning a dispute over the use of a pathway that allegedly caused damage to their property. The plaintiffs seek a temporary injunction to prevent further damage.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court granted a limited interim injunction, restraining the defendants from causing any damage to the plaintiffs' boundary wall. The application was partly allowed based on the evidence presented.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Limited interim injunction restraining the defendants from causing damage to the boundary wall.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court granted a limited interim injunction, restraining the defendants from causing any damage to the plaintiffs' boundary wall. The application was partly allowed based on the evidence presented.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The apprehension of damage due to heavy vehicle access was deemed reasonable given the circumstances.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The apprehension of damage due to heavy vehicle access was deemed reasonable given the circumstances.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner’s apprehension that the passage of heavy vehicles along the pathway is likely to cause structural damage to the boundary wall and other installations in the property cannot be lightly brushed aside.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, this Court is of the view that a limited interim injunction is warranted. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. The respondents are hereby restrained from causing any damage to the boundary wall.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Rathnamma
Party Age
73
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Biju
Party Age
43
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Shajan
Party Age
53
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Ravi
Party Age
65
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of the Gift Deed No.1411/1/1989, Certified copy of the Settlement Deed No.3546/18, Land Tax receipt of Tandaper No.8528 of Kodanadu Village.
Defendants Documents
Nil

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Anil Kumar S
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
K M Alias
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Temporary Injunction
Outcome: Partly Granted
Description:
Temporary injunction restraining the defendants from causing any damage to the boundary wall.
Evidence:
Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. The respondents are hereby restrained from causing any damage to the boundary wall.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Gift Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the Gift Deed No.1411/1/1989 of SRO, Perumbavoor which establishes ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the Settlement Deed No.3546/18 of SRO, Perumbavoor that contributes to the ownership evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Land Tax receipt of Tandaper No.8528 of Kodanadu Village supporting the ownership claim.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Survey Manual
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the Survey Manual (form No.10) relevant for assessment of property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Chalan
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the Chalan related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the Form No.12 notice (Survey Manual) significant for the case.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the notice important for the property claim.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of another notice that relates to the ongoing disputes.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the complaint preferred before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kodanadu that indicates prior grievances.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report and rough sketch submitted by the Advocate Commissioner which provides details on the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report and rough sketch submitted by the Advocate Commissioner relevant to the ongoing property case.
Reference:
Ext.C2

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Rathnamma vs Shajan regarding temporary injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Rathnamma vs Shajan regarding temporary injunction

Quick Facts

Location
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Sun, 06/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Mon, 06/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between M. G Sukumaran vs Aboobacker regarding return of money
THE MUNSIFF, PERUMBAVOOR
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between M. G. Sukumaran vs Aboobacker regarding petition for lifting attachment
THE MUNSIFF, PERUMBAVOOR
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Binojkumar Nair vs Jitha Gopi et al regarding Suit rejection under order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C.
The Munsiff Court of Perumbavoor
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between Union Bank of India, Perumbavoor Branch vs Shihab K A regarding Suit not pressed
THE MUNSIFF COURT OF PERUMBAVOOR
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Prakash V vs Chummar et al regarding Suit Rejection under Order 7 Rule 11
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, PERUMBAVOOR
Civil Suit Defendant Won