Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S 101/2023

Case between Sojan K. Thomas vs Joseph et al regarding Permanent Prohibitory injunction

Court
IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Judge
Smt. Smitha Susan Mathew
Order Date
2025-03-29
Duration
Case Code No.
101
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Sojan K. Thomas is the plaintiff seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against Joseph and others. The plaintiff claims that he has the right to use a private road through the defendants' property for ingress and egress.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court granted the plaintiff's request for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the first defendant from obstructing the use of the private road. Additionally, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs from the first defendant.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the first defendant from obstructing the use of plaint schedule item No.2 road.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court granted the plaintiff's request for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the first defendant from obstructing the use of the private road. Additionally, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs from the first defendant.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The documentary evidence and statements supporting the plaintiff's right to access the road were unchallenged and provided sufficient grounds for the injunction.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The documentary evidence and statements supporting the plaintiff's right to access the road were unchallenged and provided sufficient grounds for the injunction.
Supporting Evidence
The statement of PW1 would show that the defendants are trying to obstruct the user of plaint schedule road by the plaintiff. The recitals in Ext.A1 and A2 would show the right of plaintiff to use the plaint schedule item No.2 without any obstruction.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result the suit is decreed as follows:- 1. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is granted restraining the first defendant from obstructing the use of plaint schedule item No.2 road by plaintiff for his ingress and egress to plaint schedule item No.1 property.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sojan K. Thomas
Party Age
67
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Joseph
Party Age
57
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Chacko Varghese
Party Age
75
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Thresiamma Augustine
Party Age
73
Plaintiffs Documents
Sale deed No.3477/2007, Agreement No.110/2005, Tax receipt
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
P. Satheesh Chandran Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
T.S Raju
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is granted restraining the first defendant from obstructing the use of plaint schedule item No.2 road by plaintiff.
Evidence:
In the result the suit is decreed as follows: A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is granted restraining the first defendant from obstructing the use of plaint schedule item No.2 road by plaintiff for his ingress and egress to plaint schedule item No.1 property.
Relief Type: Damages
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff is entitled to get the cost of the suit from the first defendant and his assets.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is entitled to get the cost of the suit from the first defendant and his assets.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document establishes the plaintiff's ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This agreement details the right of the plaintiff to use the road for ingress and egress.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the ownership claims of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This report was filed to provide evidence related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This sketch was submitted along with the commission report for consideration.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kanjirappally
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S
Case Code Year
2023

Quick Facts

Location
Kanjirappally
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kanjirappally
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Sat, 03/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 04/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Abraham Mathew et al vs Suresh Raman et al regarding suit dismissal
Court of the Munsiff, Kanjirappally
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Union Bank of India vs Dhanya S., Silamban M. et al regarding non-payment of court fee.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Anilkumar vs Chirakkadavu Grama Panchayath regarding withdrawal of suit.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Joseph Antony et al vs C. M. M Educational and Charitable Trust regarding Interlocutory Application
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Anilkumar vs Chirakkadavu Grama Panchayat regarding withdrawal of suit.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won