Case Summary
The plaintiff, Satish Murthi, is seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants, who are allegedly engaging in unauthorized construction and collecting funds improperly in the apartment complex Kalatmak Residency. The case involves issues of property rights and adherence to the association's by-laws.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against unauthorized construction and collection of amounts.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring that the defendants' construction activities are unauthorized. The defendants are permanently restrained from illegal construction and from collecting any amounts from owners outside due legal processes.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff provided unchallenged evidence demonstrating the illegality of the defendants' actions.
The plaintiff provided unchallenged evidence demonstrating the illegality of the defendants' actions.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff provided unchallenged evidence demonstrating the illegality of the defendants' actions.
The plaintiff provided unchallenged evidence demonstrating the illegality of the defendants' actions.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence tendered by PW1 on record remains unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence tendered by PW1.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: i. It is declared that construction activity carried out by the Defendants in the Building, 'Kalatmak Residency', is unauthorized and illegal.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Satish Murthi
- Party Age
- 59
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Madhu John
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Nicey Madhu
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Photocopy of Sale Deed No. 4530/2006, True copy of the Judgment in O.S 318/2012, True copy of the Judgment in O.S 354/2012, True copy of the Judgment in O.S 385/2012, Photocopy of the bye-laws of the Association.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Uma Devi. M
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Shifas Ali K.A
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K. Rajan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from carrying out unauthorized construction activities.
Evidence:
Defendants, their agents, tenants, successors and assigns are restrained by way of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from carrying out/continuing with any general construction activity in the Building - "Kalatmak Residency", in an illegal or unauthorized manner.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from demanding or collecting amounts illegally.
Evidence:
Defendants, their agents, tenants, successors and assigns are restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from demanding or collecting any amounts from the owners/occupants of the Building - "Kalatmak Residency", other than by following due process of law and that too for authorized legal activities only.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Photocopy of Sale Deed No. 4530/2006 marked subject to proof
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Judgment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of the Judgment in O.S 318/2012 marked subject to proof
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Judgment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of the Judgment in O.S 354/2012 marked subject to proof
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Judgment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of the Judgment in O.S 385/2012 marked subject to proof
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Bye-laws of the Association
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Photocopy of the bye-laws of the Association marked subject to proof
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Estimate of Work
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of the estimate of the work marked subject to proof
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Report of Structural Engineer
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of the report of the Structural Engineer Sri. Jacob Mathew marked subject to proof
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Encumbrance certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of the Encumbrance Certificate
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act
Reference:
Ext.A8(a)
Document Type:
Allotment of Parking Space
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of the allotment of parking space marked subject to proof
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type:
Photograph
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of the photograph of the Car bearing No. KA 03 MX 0196 marked subject to proof
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type:
Photographs
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
2 Photographs marked subject to proof
Reference:
Ext.A13 series
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 Satish Murthi vs Madhu John et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and declaration.
Case Code Year
Case between Satish Murthi vs Madhu John et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and declaration.