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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 125 /2014

Case between Sreelatha Pradeep vs Kumary Indran et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
II Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2024-06-21
Duration
approximately-9 years 5 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Sreelatha Pradeep, the plaintiff, owns a property in Maradu and is seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants who are obstructing her from constructing a compound wall on her property. The defendants are claiming the pathway rights and opposing the construction.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to be permanently restrained from trespassing and obstructing the plaintiff's use of her property.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against trespassing and obstruction.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established her ownership and that the defendants had no right to obstruct her construction.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms. Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into plaint schedule property and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the same.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Sreelatha Pradeep (47 years) Sree Deepam, Nettoor .P.O., Maradu, Ernakulam District, Pin – 682 040

Defendants

Kumary Indran (35 years) Pin – 682 040 Ayyappan (Age not specified years) Koladath House, Maradu, Ernakulam District, Pin 682 040 Maradu Municipality (Age not specified years) Pin – 682 304

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendants are restrained from trespassing and causing obstruction to the plaintiff.
Evidence:
Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into plaint schedule property and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the same.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provides evidence of the original ownership and partition of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Certified copy of document
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Contains the sale transaction that transferred ownership to the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the extent and boundaries of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Basic Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Validates the tax paid and further ownership claims on the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Basic Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Recent tax receipt supporting the plaintiff's claim of ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Copy of Representation
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the plaintiff's attempts to address the obstruction caused by defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Documents the findings related to the encroachment and layout of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Visual representation of the property layout relevant for the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Provides insight into the conditions of the property and encroachments observed.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Visual evidence supporting the court's findings on the property condition.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a) to C2(d)

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Sat, 06/21/2014 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
100%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases