Case Summary
The plaintiff, Santhoshkumar C P, is seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against George and others to prevent them from interfering with his rights over a property and pathway. The court finds the plaintiff's claims valid and issues an injunction against the defendants.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment of the property and pathway.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit, restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff's use of the property and pathway. The counterclaim by the defendants was dismissed with costs.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found the plaintiff's rights over the property and pathway to be well established through prior decrees and unchallenged documents.
The court found the plaintiff's rights over the property and pathway to be well established through prior decrees and unchallenged documents.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found the plaintiff's rights over the property and pathway to be well established through prior decrees and unchallenged documents.
The court found the plaintiff's rights over the property and pathway to be well established through prior decrees and unchallenged documents.
Supporting Evidence
The court is satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from obstructing the usage of the plaint C schedule property...
Judgment Evidence:
Suit is decreed with costs as follows: 1. The defendants 1 to 3 and their men are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment of plaint C schedule pathway...
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Santhoshkumar C P
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- George
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kumari George
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Varghese
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Babu Varghese
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Sale deed No. 2130/2006, Sale deed No. 912/1996, Tax receipts
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Vipin D G
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Arnold D James
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Karol Mathews Sebastian Alencherry
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- A Balagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sojo J Kallidukkil
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s enjoyment of the plaint C schedule pathway.
Evidence:
Therefore, court is satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from obstructing the usage of the plaint C schedule property.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Restraining the defendants from making alterations in the plaint C schedule pathway.
Evidence:
The defendants has no right to obstruct or disturb the decision of the judgment in Exhibit A5 and Exhibit A6.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of plaint A schedule property.
Evidence:
The plaintiff has all the right to use the plaint C schedule property by virtue of Exhibit A2 as well as Exhibit A5 judgment.
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Not Decided
Description:
Recovery of possession of counter claim A schedule property by the defendants.
Evidence:
The defendants have failed to prove their right over the plaint C schedule property or the counter claim B schedule property.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves the plaintiff's ownership of the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Outlines the previous sale of land from the 4th defendant to the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demonstrates tax payment by the plaintiff for the retained property of the 4th defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows another instance of tax payment related to the 4th defendant's property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Judgment
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Confirms the width and rights over the plaint C schedule pathway.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Order
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Reiterates the plaintiff's rights and the necessity for the defendants to restore the pathway.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Details the condition and access of the plaint C schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Santhoshkumar C P vs George et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Santhoshkumar C P vs George et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction