Case Summary
Sethukumar is the plaintiff seeking a Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against Sivaraman and others, who are allegedly threatening to demolish a wall on his property. The plaintiff claims ownership of the property and contends that the defendants have no right to trespass or damage the property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent Prohibitory Injunction
Case Type
Injunction
Final Judgment
No
The plaintiff's suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from trespassing or demolishing the wall on the plaintiff's property. The defendants were found to have no rights over the plaint schedule property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff proved possession of the plaint schedule property and the defendants did not contest the case.
The plaintiff proved possession of the plaint schedule property and the defendants did not contest the case.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff proved possession of the plaint schedule property and the defendants did not contest the case.
The plaintiff proved possession of the plaint schedule property and the defendants did not contest the case.
Supporting Evidence
The Plaintiff proved his contentions in the plaint through affidavit and through the contentions in Ext.A1 to A7 documents. So it is clear that the plaintiff is in the possession of the plaint schedule property. The evidence of the plaintiff remains unchallenged since he was not cross examined by the defendants.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows. 1) The defendant and his men are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, demolishing the stone foundation or wall on the northern side of the plaint schedule property or do any kind of act detrimental to the rights of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sethukumar
- Party Age
- 49
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sivaraman
- Party Age
- 59
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Muralidharan
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Thampi
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Suni
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Manu Krishna
- Party Age
- 25
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Settlement Deed No. 5397/2016, Tax Receipt issued by Village Office, Thiruvaniyoor, Tax Receipt issued by Village Office, Thiruvaniyoor, Location Sketch issued by Village Office, Thiruvaniyoor, Possession Certificate issued by Village Office, Thiruvaniyoor, Encrumbrance Certificate issued by SRO, Puthencruz.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- C Girish Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Babu T Cherian
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
A permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent defendants from trespassing or demolishing the wall.
Evidence:
The defendant and his men are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, demolishing the stone foundation or wall on the northern side of the plaint schedule property or do any kind of act detrimental to the rights of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Request for costs in the suit.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are not entitled to get costs in the suit.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provides evidence related to property tax.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provides evidence related to property tax.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Location Sketch
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Illustrates the location of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Possession Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirms the plaintiff's possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Encrumbrance Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provides details regarding any encumbrances on the property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Encrumbrance Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provides details regarding any encumbrances on the property.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Gives findings related to the property after a commission.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Visual representation related to the commission findings.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Injunction
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kolenchery
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Sethukumar vs Sivaraman et al regarding Permanent Prohibitory Injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Sethukumar vs Sivaraman et al regarding Permanent Prohibitory Injunction