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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 901/2021

Case between Swaroop Rajan vs P E Thomas regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany.
Order Date
2025-07-05
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Swaroop Rajan filed a suit against P E Thomas for a permanent prohibitory injunction regarding property possession. The plaintiff claims his right to possess the property as per a memorandum of agreement, while the defendant disputes the validity of this agreement.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff's possession of the property. Additionally, the defendant was ordered to pay costs of the suit.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent injunction from obstructing possession and costs of the suit
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established his case based on unchallenged oral and documentary evidence.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms. Defendant is restrained by a permanent decree of mandatory injunction from preventing the plaintiff or his men or agents from possessing the plaint schedule property in exercise of his legal rights accruing and arising from the Memorandum of Agreement...

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Swaroop Rajan (33 years) Shoranoor – 579 121, Palakkad District Dr. C A Rajan (65 years) Shoranoor – 679 121, Palakkad District

Defendants

P E Thomas (null years) 50/934-A, Pulinat House, Park Lane, SBT Junction, Edappally, Kochi- 682 024

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Restrain the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the property.
Evidence:
Defendant is restrained by a permanent decree of mandatory injunction from preventing the plaintiff or his men or agents from possessing the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendant is directed to pay costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
Evidence:
Defendant is directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiff.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Memorandum of Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the contractual relationship and the plaintiff's rights regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Lawyer's Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to complete the transaction and requests delivery of possession.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Acknowledgment card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supports the claim of communication regarding the agreement.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates the defendant's response to the notice and the nature of the communication.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Complaint to Police Station
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Documents the illegal actions taken against the plaintiff and reinforces the urgency of intervention.
Reference:
Ext.A5

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases