Case Summary
The petitioner, Roy J Vayalatty, seeks an interim prohibitory injunction against his brother Thomas J Vayalattu and others regarding a property dispute. The property in question relates to a joint venture agreement between the parties concerning their properties.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Interim prohibitory injunction restraining respondents from taking possession of the property
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the petition in part, restraining the third respondent from taking possession of the petitioner's property while allowing the demarcation procedures to continue.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable loss if the property is taken into possession without due process.
The petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable loss if the property is taken into possession without due process.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable loss if the property is taken into possession without due process.
The petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable loss if the property is taken into possession without due process.
Supporting Evidence
It is also satisfied that the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and hardship, if the property owned by him, which has not been mortgaged to the respondent No. 3 bank, is forcibly taken into possession.
Judgment Evidence:
Therefore, the point is found partly in favour of the petitioner. Respondents and their men are restrained from forcibly taking possession of the property having an extent of 6.5 cents situated in Pre-survey No. 135 /1 of block 13 of Maradu Village owned by the petitioner until the disposal of the suit.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Roy J Vayalatty
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Thomas J Vayalattu
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Elizabathu Thomas
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M/s South Indian Bank Ltd
- Relation
- represented by
Plaintiffs Documents
Exhibits A1 to A8
Defendants Documents
Exhibits B1 and B2
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P.P.Haris
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.M.Shyju
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Jesto Paul A
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Baiju Louis Mookken
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Kiran C Vinoy
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Yahya C.S
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Lazar T.A
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sohail Ahammed Harris P.P
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Samreen Fathima Harris P.P
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- M.S.Unnikrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Aaditya Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Ardra Krishnan M
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Diya Merin Biju
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sohan Varghese Francis
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Anusree B
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Reshma K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Partly Granted
Description:
Petitioner sought temporary prohibitory injunction restraining respondents from taking possession of the property.
Evidence:
Respondents and their men are restrained from forcibly taking possession of the property having an extent of 6.5 cents situated in Pre-survey No. 135 /1 of block 13 of Maradu Village owned by the petitioner.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Title deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original title deed of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Joint Venture Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Agreement based on which the commercial building was constructed.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Letter confirming deposit of title deeds
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Confirmation regarding deposit of title deeds as security for additional amount.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Sale deed related to properties connected to the case.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Report filed by the Advocate Commissioner to assess the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Recovery of money
Case Code
Case between Roy J Vayalatty vs Thomas J Vayalattu et al regarding interim prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Roy J Vayalatty vs Thomas J Vayalattu et al regarding interim prohibitory injunction