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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 972/2023

Case between Shal Joseph et al vs Jenson et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M.
Order Date
2025-08-20
Duration
approximately-2 years 6 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Shal Joseph and Annie Joseph, are co-owners of a property and are suing the defendants, Jenson and Jerome, who are their relatives, for attempting to alter a pathway that the plaintiffs claim to own. The plaintiffs seek an injunction to prevent the defendants from making modifications to this pathway.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their exclusive possession over the pathway in question. The defendants were permitted to maintain the pathway.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to establish their exclusive possession over the plaint schedule pathway.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Shal Joseph (44 years years) Kalluveettil house, Kadamakudy, Pizhala P.O, Ernakulam – 682 027 Annie Joseph (67 years years) Kalluveettil house, Kadamakudy, Pizhala P.O, Ernakulam – 682 027

Defendants

Jenson (48 years years) Kalluveettil house, Kadamakudy, Pizhala P.O, Ernakulam – 682 027 Jerome (53 years years) Kalluveettil house, Kadamakudy, Pizhala P.O, Ernakulam – 682 027

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants regarding the alteration of the plaint schedule pathway.
Evidence:
Evidently the plaintiff failed to prove his exclusive possession over the plaint schedule pathway.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The issue as to costs was raised in the suit.
Evidence:
Thus, the issue as to costs is also found against the plaintiff.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document is a copy of the prior deed through which the plaintiffs claim title over the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document is a certified copy of the partition deed by which the plaintiff’s father acquired title of plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document evidences the plaintiffs' possession over the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Death Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is related to the father of the first plaintiff, providing context to the ownership claim.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: FIR
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document relates to a police complaint involving the defendants, offering context to the dispute.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is issued by the Branch Manager, providing additional context regarding the plaintiff's claims.
Reference:
Ext.A6

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases