Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 102/2022

Case between Sam C. Uthup vs C.R Lopez regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction

Court
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Rohit Nandakumar
Order Date
2025-02-28
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff Sam C. Uthup and defendant C.R Lopez are involved in a legal dispute concerning property boundaries and alleged trespass. The plaintiff seeks a permanent prohibition against the defendant from entering his property, claiming unauthorized demolition of a wall.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court has granted a permanent prohibitory injunction in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and committing any acts of waste or mischief.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property.
Case Type
Injunction
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found that the plaintiff was in possession of the plaint schedule property and that the defendant attempted to encroach upon it.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is partly decreed as follows: the defendant, his men or agents are restrained ... from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from committing any act of waste or mischief.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Sam C. Uthup (45 years years) Cheruvathur House, P. H Road, Kombara, Ernakulam North P.O, Pin – 682 018, Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District.

Defendants

C.R Lopez alias Colman Robert Lopez (68 years years) Tata Oil Mill Road, Mezhuvelikkakath, Lopez Avenue, Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District.

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant from trespassing.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is found to be in possession of the plaint schedule property, as identified in the Ext C1 commission report.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought direction for the defendant to reconstruct the demolished wall and remove unauthorized constructions.
Evidence:
The plaintiff has no request for relief of fixation of boundary nor has taken any steps to have the property properly measured based upon the title document.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Certified copy of document
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document establishing ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Receives property tax documentation supporting the plaintiff's claim.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Visual evidence relevant to the condition and status of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3 series
Document Type: FMB Sketch
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Geographical representation of property boundaries relevant to the dispute.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Document indicating complaints submitted regarding the plaintiff's actions.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Acknowledgment of complaint filing by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Application under RTI
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Application filed to obtain information relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Acknowledgment response from the Corporation regarding the RTI application.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Reply against RTI
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Official response from the Corporation related to the RTI request.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Court-appointed commission report providing factual insights into the property dispute.
Reference:
Ext.C1

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases