Case Summary
The plaintiffs are seeking a mandatory injunction against the defendants, who are the office bearers of neighboring properties. The plaintiffs claim ownership of the properties and allege that the defendants are attempting to interfere with their possession.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
Judgment Evidence:
The OS 294/2006 stands dismissed. In the result, the OS 306/2006 is partly decreed as follows: I. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants and their men and agents from trespassing into the plaint schedule property in OS 306/2006.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Sumitha Rahim (28 years years)
Flat No. 29, North Avenue Apartments, Thrikkanarvattom desom, Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk
Sabitha Rahim (40 years years)
Flat No. 29, North Avenue Apartments, Thrikkanarvattom desom, Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk
Sajitha Jaleel (40 years years)
Flat No. 29, North Avenue Apartments, Thrikkanarvattom desom, Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk
Sainu Rahim (58 years years)
Flat No. 29, North Avenue Apartments, Thrikkanarvattom desom, Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk
Mohammed Jaleel (45 years years)
Valiyaveettil House, SRM Road, Cochin-18
Defendants
Mr. Ramachandran (48 years years)
Vyapara Bhavan, Palarivattom
Mr. Ratheeshkumar (30 years years)
Palarivattom
Mr. Hariharam (58 years years)
Palarivattom
Mr. Murali (50 years years)
Palarivattom
Sree Raja Rjeswari Temple represented by K Hariharan Nair (51 years years)
Sree Raja Rajeswari Temple Managing Committee, N.S.S Karayogam
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs requested mandatory injunction to remove the defendants' constructions.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs have not succeeded in establishing the possession over the Plaint B to F Schedule properties.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction restraining defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs herein had constructed a wall in the plaint schedule properties thereby blocking the access of the defendants.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Primary document establishing authority for plaintiffs Sanuja Naushad, Sainu Rahim and M.A Abdul Rahim.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of ownership for plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Property tax receipt supporting claim of possession.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of ownership for plaint C schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of ownership for plaint D schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of ownership for plaint E schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A12
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of ownership for plaint F schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A14
Document Type:
Patta
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of claim regarding ownership and rights to the plaint schedule properties.
Reference:
Ext.A16
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Report on property status and possession.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Additional report on property status.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Further documentation regarding the status of the plaint schedule properties.
Reference:
Ext.C3