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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 312/2017

Case between Sujatha Jayaraj vs Babu Jayaraj et al regarding partition and injunction

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, PERUMBAVOOR
Judge
Smt. Alshari A.
Order Date
2025-02-04
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Sujatha Jayaraj filed a suit against her brother Babu Jayaraj and the Aluva Urban Co-operative Bank seeking partition and injunction regarding property inherited from their parents. The case involves allegations of fraud concerning a power of attorney and the mortgaging of the property.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court found that the suit was not maintainable due to the initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act concerning the property. Therefore, the suit was dismissed.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The suit was dismissed as not maintainable.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is found to be not maintainable and therefore, suit stands dismissed.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Sujatha Jayaraj (48 years) 3815 ALTHORPE CIRCLE, MISSISSAUGA, L5 N7 G3, ONTARIO, CANADA

Defendants

Babu Jayaraj (43 years) Control Madam, Broadway, Perumbavoor Kara, Perumbavoor Village, Kunnathunad Taluk. The Aluva Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Age not specified years) No. 1623, Aluva

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought an injunction against the first defendant regarding the shared property.
Evidence:
the suit is found to be not maintainable and therefore, suit stands dismissed.
Relief Type: Partition
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff requested partition of the schedule property.
Evidence:
there is no purpose in proceeding with the same and thereby, the suit is dismissed as not maintainable.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The court discussed the power of attorney created by the first defendant, which the plaintiff claimed was fraudulent.
Reference:

Quick Facts

Location
Perumbavoor
Case Filed
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases