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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 1195/2018

Case between Sunny Mathew vs Girly Johney regarding declaration and injunction

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M.
Order Date
2025-03-17
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Sunny Mathew, the plaintiff, seeks a declaration of possessory title and an injunction to prevent Girly Johney, the defendant, from interfering with his possession of the property. The plaintiff claims that the defendant has threatened to encroach on the property.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The suit is decreed in part, with the defendant being restrained from trespassing upon the plaint A schedule property, maintaining the plaintiff’s possession.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendant is restrained from trespassing upon plaint A schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff is in settled possession of the property, and the defendant has no claim of rights over it.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed in part as follows; 1. Defendant is restrained from trespassing upon plaint A schedule property in any way disturbing the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of plaint A schedule property.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Sunny Mathew (62 years years) Elanjickal House, Muthalakodam P.O, Thodupuzha village, Thodupuzha taluk, Idukki District, Pin- 685 605

Defendants

Girly Johney (65years years) Edathottil house, Mulavukadu P.O, Bolgatty, Kanayannur taluk, Ernakulam District, Pin – 682 504

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent the defendant from interfering with the property.
Evidence:
Thus, the plaintiff has every right to enjoy plaint A schedule property without any kind of obstruction from the side of the defendant who has no claim over the same.
Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought a declaration of possessory title for the plaint A schedule property.
Evidence:
Thus, in so far as the relief of declaration of possessory title is concerned, the plaintiff who has no claim of adverse possession which crystallises his possession over plaint A schedule property to that of a title, cannot be said to be entitled for a relief of declaration.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the document establishing the plaintiff's prior ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document supporting the plaintiff's claim of possession over the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Commissioner Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Report by the advocate commissioner regarding the boundaries of the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch produced along with the advocate commissioner's report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)

Quick Facts

Location
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases