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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 1325/2024

Case between Theresa Preethi vs Bijoy A.C regarding temporary injunction

Court
COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Judge
Smt. REEJA R. NAIR.
Order Date
2025-09-15
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Theresa Preethi, the plaintiff, seeks a temporary injunction to prevent Bijoy A.C from encroaching on her property and to maintain the status quo regarding property access. The dispute involves rival claims over access pathways to their respective properties.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the petition for temporary injunction, directing both parties to maintain the status quo regarding the property until the resolution of the suit.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Both parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to plaint A and B schedule properties and the pathway.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court acknowledged the dispute and deemed it important to maintain status quo to prevent further complications.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is allowed as follows; i.Both the petitioner and the respondent are directed to maintain status quo with respect to plaint A and B schedule properties and the pathway as noted in the Advocate Commissioner’s report in IA No.3/2024, till the disposal of the suit.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Theresa Preethi (49 years years) 45/949, Padinjarekaaran House, River Landing Lane, Pachalam, Kochi, PIN- 682012

Defendants

Bijoy A.C (48 years years) Anamthuruthil House, Pallimuttam, Eroor Desam, Nadama Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Eroor P.O., Ernakulam District, PIN: 682 306

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Both the petitioner and the respondent are directed to maintain status quo with respect to plaint A and B schedule properties and the pathway.
Evidence:
In the result, the petition is allowed as follows; i.Both the petitioner and the respondent are directed to maintain status quo with respect to plaint A and B schedule properties and the pathway as noted in the Advocate Commissioner’s report in IA No.3/2024, till the disposal of the suit.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is claimed by the petitioner to establish her ownership over the plaint A schedule property and the right of access through plaint B schedule pathway.
Reference:
Document No.2321/1998
Document Type: Commissioner's Report
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
This report provides details about the physical status of the properties in question and reflects the presence of a boundary dispute.
Reference:
IA No.3/2024
Document Type: Boundary Application
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
The petitioner filed an application before the Tahsildar for boundary demarcation to avoid disputes.
Reference:
null
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Oral evidence
Relevance:
Testimonies and statements made by the parties during the proceedings.
Reference:
null

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases