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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 955/2024

Case between Smt. Gauri Sukumaran vs Seena Bharghavan regarding mandatory injunction and damages

Court
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Rohit Nandakumar
Order Date
2025-12-19
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Smt. Gauri Sukumaran, claims ownership of the property and seeks a mandatory injunction to evict the defendant, Seena Bharghavan, who is unlawfully occupying the premises. The defendant argues that she has rights over the property as it is a shared household.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property. The defendant's claims to rights over the property were found to be without merit.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Mandatory injunction to vacate the plaint schedule property
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff proved her ownership of the property and established that the defendant had only permissive occupation, which was not legally valid.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is partly decreed as follows: The defendant is directed by a decree of mandatory injunction to vacate the plaint schedule property and put the plaintiff in possession of the same.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Smt. Gauri Sukumaran (85 years years) EKTA Apartments, Flat No: B9, Ponekkara P.O, Edapally, Kochi, Ernakulam - 682 041

Defendants

Seena Bharghavan (52 years) Siva Kripa, Kunnalakkat Lane, Jayanthi Road, Maradu P.O., Ernakulam 682 304

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendant is directed by a decree of mandatory injunction to vacate the plaint schedule property and put the plaintiff in possession of the same.
Relief Type: Damages
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Direct the defendant to pay ₹25,000 per month as mesne profits/damages for the use and occupation of the plaint schedule property from the date of the suit.
Evidence:
Claim for damages as sought for in the suit at hand is without any merits.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Direct the defendant to pay the full costs of the proceedings.
Evidence:
The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs to the suit.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the ownership of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notifies the defendant of the termination of the license and demands vacation of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of sending the lawyer's notice to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Computer print out of Track Consignment
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Computer print out of Discharge Summary
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Certificate issued by Residents Association
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
To support the defendant's position regarding residency.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: True copy of Order in CMP
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Supports the defendant's claim of rights over the property.
Reference:
Ext.B2

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases