Case Summary
The plaintiff, Sindhu P S, is seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, Shanmughan, regarding an alleged encroachment on her property. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove her ownership or possession of the disputed property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff failed to establish her ownership or possession of the disputed property. The court ruled that no injunction can be granted against the true owner.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to prove her case regarding ownership and possession of the disputed property.
The plaintiff failed to prove her case regarding ownership and possession of the disputed property.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff failed to prove her case regarding ownership and possession of the disputed property.
The plaintiff failed to prove her case regarding ownership and possession of the disputed property.
Supporting Evidence
It is well settled principle that no injunction can be granted against the true owner. The plaintiff has failed to prove that she was in possession of the property nor is the owner of the plaint C schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sindhu P S
- Party Age
- 36
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Shanmughan
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Notarised copy of partition deed No.338/19 of SRO, Edappally, Certified copy of sale deed No.1885/1961 of Edappally SRO, relevant page of the thandaper register in respect of the defendant, sketch of plaint schedule property in Re.Sy. No.275/4, photocopy of the sketch of plaint schedule property in Re.Sy.No.275/4 dated 17.05.2005.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K P Santhi
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Request to prevent the defendant from encroaching or disposing of the plaintiff's property.
Evidence:
Hence from the above discussion this court is satisfied that the plaintiff has not proved the case. Hence plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed for.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notarized copy of partition deed No.338/19 of Edappally SRO, showing the plaintiff's title and possession.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No.1885/1961 of Edappally SRO, relevant to the ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Thandaper Register
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Relevant page of the thandaper register in respect of the defendant's property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Property Sketch
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Sketch of plaint schedule property in Re.Sy. No.275/4, Block No.9, indicating the layout of the land.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Property Sketch
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Photocopy of the sketch of plaint schedule property in Re.Sy.No.275/4, Block No.9 dated 17.05.2005.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report showing that the plaint schedule property is vacant land that lies contiguously without demarcation.
Reference:
Ext.C1
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 Sindhu P S vs Shanmughan regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Sindhu P S vs Shanmughan regarding permanent prohibitory injunction