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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 1118/2023

Case between Sony Thomas vs Thressiamma Joseph regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-10-06
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Sony Thomas, seeks a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, Thressiamma Joseph, to prevent eviction from a commercial property. The plaintiff claims a statutory tenant status and alleges threats and unlawful eviction attempts by the defendant.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant from evicting the plaintiff except through due process of law.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against eviction.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established valid tenancy and presented unchallenged evidence supporting his claim.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms. 1) Defendant is restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from forcibly evicting plaintiff from the suit schedule property otherwise than in due process of law.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Sony Thomas (48 years) Kandathinkadavil House, Chemmannar P O, Udumbanchola Taluk, Idukki District, Kochi - - 682 025

Defendants

Thressiamma Joseph (75 years) Kalathiparambil House, Vennala P O, Edappally South Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District - - 682 028

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendant is restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.
Evidence:
Defendant is restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from forcibly evicting plaintiff from the suit schedule property otherwise than in due process of law.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendant is directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiff.
Evidence:
Defendant is directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiff.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Photocopy of rent agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows the agreement under which the plaintiff is claiming tenancy.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Original of receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
These receipts indicate regular rent payments made by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Exts.A2 to A6, A8, A11
Document Type: Copy of Google pay receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
These receipts indicate payments made through Google Pay for rent and other charges.
Reference:
Ext.A7, A9, A10
Document Type: Bank Statement indicating Google pay
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows a bank transaction that supports the plaintiff's claims about payments.
Reference:
Ext.A12
Document Type: Copy of Google pay receipt indicating payment of electricity charges
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
These receipts provide evidence of the plaintiff's payments for electricity charges.
Reference:
Ext.A13 to A18
Document Type: Photo Copy of Google pay receipt indicating water charges
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
These receipts provide evidence of the plaintiff's payments for water charges.
Reference:
Ext.A19, A20

Quick Facts

Location
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
100%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases