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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No.1209/2020

Case between Suber M.I. vs Sigil T.P. et al regarding Perpetual Injunction

Court
THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. REEJA R. NAIR
Order Date
2024-09-26
Duration
approximately-3 years 9 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Suber M.I. filed a suit against Sigil T.P. and Firaz p. for a perpetual injunction to prevent unlawful trespass into his building. The plaintiff claims he is the owner of the building and fears the defendants will disrupt his peaceful possession.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed a perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from trespassing upon the building. The plaintiff is entitled to recover costs from the first defendant.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Perpetual Injunction
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The unrebutted oral testimony and evidence submitted by the plaintiff established his ownership of the building.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is decreed as follows; A decree of perpetual Injunction is hereby passed restraining the 1st defendant and his agents from trespassing upon the scheduled building.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Suber M.I. (52 years) Manathuchalukandathil House, Kakkanadu P.O., Kakkanadu Village, Thrikkakara Municipality, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District

Defendants

Sigil T.P. (35 years) Souparnika House, Karumalloor, Thoppil Road, Ernakuam­683511 Firaz p. (31 years) Palappura House, Chinakkal, Valiyora P.O., Malappuram District

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
A decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing on the scheduled building.
Evidence:
A decree of perpetual Injunction is hereby passed restraining the 1st defendant and his agents from trespassing upon the scheduled building and also from committing any type of waste in the scheduled properties.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of settlement deed which establishes the plaintiff's ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original of building tax receipt admitted in evidence to support the plaintiff's claim.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of land tax receipt was filed but rejected for not meeting the requirements for secondary evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
The oral testimony of the plaintiff was relied upon to establish the claim.
Reference:

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Thu, 12/03/2020 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases