Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S 185/2020

Case between Sebastian Mathew vs Thomas Mathew regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Judge
Smt. Smitha Susan Mathew
Order Date
2025-10-31
Duration
approximately-5 years
Case Code No.
185
Case Closed
Fri, 10/31/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Sebastian Mathew and his wife Jessyamma Sebastian are the plaintiffs filing a counterclaim against Thomas Mathew regarding a property dispute. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant is trespassing on their property and destroying cultivations.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court granted a permanent prohibitory injunction to the counterclaim plaintiff against the defendant. The original suit was dismissed as not pressed.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the counterclaim defendant from trespassing on the property and committing waste.
Case Type
Counter claim
Final Judgment
No
The court granted a permanent prohibitory injunction to the counterclaim plaintiff against the defendant. The original suit was dismissed as not pressed.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The evidence presented showed the counterclaim plaintiff was the owner and in possession of the property being disputed.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The evidence presented showed the counterclaim plaintiff was the owner and in possession of the property being disputed.
Supporting Evidence
The oral and documentary evidence of DW1 would show that counterclaim plaintiff is the owner and in possession of counterclaim schedule property. Her unrebutted evidence shows that counterclaim plaintiff/defendant is trespassing on the counterclaim schedule property, destroying cultivations and committing waste therein.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the counterclaim is decreed as follows: A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is granted restraining the counterclaim defendant/plaintiff from cutting open a new road through counterclaim schedule property, destroying the cultivations in counterclaim schedule property, obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of counterclaim plaintiff over counterclaim schedule property and committing waste therein.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sebastian Mathew
Party Age
52
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Jessiyamma Sebastian
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Thomas Mathew
Party Age
56
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Will deed No.91/96, Tax receipt dated 16/08/2023.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Joseph Mathew
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Restraining the counterclaim defendant from cutting open a new road and destroying crops.
Evidence:
The counterclaim is decreed as follows: A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is granted restraining the counterclaim defendant/plaintiff from cutting open a new road through counterclaim schedule property, destroying the cultivations in counterclaim schedule property, obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of counterclaim plaintiff over counterclaim schedule property and committing waste therein.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Cost of the suit from the counterclaim defendant.
Evidence:
Counterclaim plaintiff is entitled to get the cost of the suit from counterclaim defendant.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Will Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proved ownership of the counterclaim schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provided evidence of the counterclaim plaintiff's property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Mahazar
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Prepared by Commissioner as part of the evidence.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Prepared by Commissioner as part of the evidence.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Mahazar
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Prepared by Commissioner as part of the evidence.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Prepared by Commissioner as part of the evidence.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)

Case Classification

Case Type
Counter Claim
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kanjirappally
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S
Case Code Year
2020

Quick Facts

Location
Kanjirappally
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kanjirappally
Case Filed
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 12:00
Case Closed
Fri, 10/31/2025 - 12:00
From
Mon, 09/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 10/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
100%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Union Bank of India vs Dhanya S., Silamban M. et al regarding non-payment of court fee.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Anilkumar vs Chirakkadavu Grama Panchayath regarding withdrawal of suit.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Joseph Antony et al vs C. M. M Educational and Charitable Trust regarding Interlocutory Application
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Anilkumar vs Chirakkadavu Grama Panchayat regarding withdrawal of suit.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Omana S. et al vs Saji @ Sasi regarding Counter Claim
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Counter Claim Plaintiff Won