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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 64/2024

Case between Shivan M.V vs M. V Sarojini regarding injunction.

Court
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Rohit Nandakumar
Order Date
2025-09-15
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Shivan M.V, is seeking an injunction against his sister, M. V Sarojini, regarding the use of a pathway that they jointly own. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has been obstructing his ability to use the pathway, which is necessary for access to his property.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court has granted the plaintiff a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, restraining her from making any obstructions to the plaintiff's use of the jointly owned pathway.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the use of the pathway.
Case Type
Injunction
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The evidence showed that both parties have equal rights over the pathway, and the defendant was obstructing the plaintiff's usage.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: i. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is passed restraining the defendant, her men and agents from making any sort of obstructions or objections to the peaceful user of plaint C schedule pathway by the plaintiff or his family members or tenants in his building, for the user of the plaint C schedule property as a pathway.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Shivan M.V (60 years) Manamell House, Panangadu P.O, Kumbalam Village, Pin – 682 506

Defendants

M. V Sarojini (63 years) Manamell House, Panangadu P.O, Kumbalam Village, Pin – 682 506

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff's use of the plaint C schedule pathway.
Evidence:
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is passed restraining the defendant, her men and agents from making any sort of obstructions or objections to the peaceful user of plaint C schedule pathway by the plaintiff.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Costs of the suit to be awarded to the plaintiff.
Evidence:
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of suit from the defendant.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the legal partition of property between the plaintiff and defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirms the plaintiff's purchase of property related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Serves as evidence of the plaintiff's ownership of the Plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Serves as evidence of the plaintiff's ownership of the Plaint B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Serves as evidence of the plaintiff's ownership of the Plaint C schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Was considered but not admitted due to objections regarding its authorship.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Relevant to earlier disputes but not admitted due to objections.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Certified copy of Plaint
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Establishes the context of the previous case related to the same dispute.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Copy of I.A
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Relevant to the prior proceedings and noted for proof.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Counter affidavit
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Relevant to the prior proceedings but not admitted due to its photocopy status.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Relevant to the prior case but not admitted due to its photocopy status.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Certified Copy of I.A
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Pertains to previous injunction requests in the prior case.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Injunction Schedule
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Relevant to prior proceedings but not admitted due to its photocopy status.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type: Certified Copy of Memo
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Relates to the previous proceedings.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type: Certified copy of written statement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Documents the defendant's response in the prior case.
Reference:
Ext.B8
Document Type: Certified Copy of Judgment
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Final judgment in the previous related case.
Reference:
Ext.B9
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Clarifies the layout of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Associated with the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases