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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 111/2016

Case between Saramma Thomas vs Purushothaman et al regarding injunction

Court
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Rohit Nandakumar
Order Date
2024-09-02
Duration
approximately-8 years 7 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Saramma Thomas, claims ownership of a property and seeks a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, who are obstructing her access to the property. The defendants deny the plaintiff's allegations and claim no right of access exists.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish her right of access and ownership over the property claimed. The defendants' position was upheld as there was no evidence presented to support the claims made by the plaintiff.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff did not adequately prove the existence of a pathway or her claim of ownership over the property.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed. The parties shall suffer their respective costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Saramma Thomas (53 years) Vettath Bhavan, Kadavanthra Desom, Elamkulam Village, Kanaynnur Taluk

Defendants

Purushothaman (50 years) Padmalayam, North of St. Gregorious Nagar, Kunjan Bava Road, Vytilla, Cochin 682 019 Bindu (48 years) Padmalayam, North of St. Gregorious Nagar, Kunjan Bava Road, Vytilla, Cochin 682 019 Raman (70 years) C/o Devika beauty parlor, North of St. Gregorious Nagar, Kunjan Bava Road, Vytilla, Cochin 682 019 Balraj (50 years) C/o Devika beauty parlor, North of St. Gregorious Nagar, Kunjan Bava Road, Vytilla, Cochin 682 019 Kenny Philip (52 years) Manager, Model Public School, Kayamkulam, Pallickal P.O., PIN 690 503

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is not entitled to get a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for, as the right of the plaintiff to access the road on the northern side of the plaint schedule property from the northern boundary of the plaint schedule property, by passing through the strip of land that exists in between, is not properly established before the court.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document establishing authority for legal representation.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Pattayam with sketch
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document evidencing the ownership and details of the plaint scheduled property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document detailing the sale of the property to the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document related to an agreement, marked subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Location Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document certifying location, marked subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Photograph of Press Conference
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document related to a press conference, marked subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Complaint filed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document related to a complaint, marked subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Proceedings of the Sub Collector
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document related to proceeding, marked subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Sale Agreement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Document evidencing the sale agreement relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: True extract of Basic Tax Register
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Document showing the tax details concerning the relevant survey.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type: Attested True Copy of the Field Sketch
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Document providing a field sketch relevant to the property.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type: Certificate u/s. 65 (B) of Evidence Act
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Certification required for the admissibility of electronic evidence, marked subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.B9
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Court-referred commission report relevant to the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Interim Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Interim report related to legal proceedings regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Evidence presented orally during the hearing.
Reference:

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Mon, 01/25/2016 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases