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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 1463/2014

Case between Tomy George et al vs Basheer regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Needi. K. Dinamany
Order Date
2025-01-29
Duration
approximately-10 years 14 days

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, a husband and wife represented by their Power of Attorney holder, are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant who is attempting to encroach on their property. The case revolves around the ownership and access rights to a disputed pathway.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant from trespassing into the plaintiffs' property and ordering the defendant to pay the costs of the suit.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court determined that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and in possession of the disputed pathway.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms. 1) Defendant is restrained from trespassing into plaint A and B schedule property and commit any waste therein. 2) Defendants are directed to pay the cost of the suit to plaintiffs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Tomy George (68 years) Puthenpurayil House, Manalady, Ramankary P O, Alappuzha Lissy Thomas (55 years) Puthepurayil House, Manalady, Ramankary P O, Alappuzha George Joseph (70 years) Puthenpurayil House, Manalady, Ramankary P O, Alappuzha

Defendants

Basheer (42 years) Karikattuparambil, Muttarpuzha Kadau Road, Edapally North P O, Ernakulam

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Permanent injunction restraining defendant from trespassing into plaint A and B schedule properties.
Evidence:
The court finds that the plaint B schedule property is in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs. The defendants have no right over said pathway.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendants directed to pay the cost of the suit to plaintiffs.
Evidence:
On the basis of finding in issue Nos. 1 to 3 this court is satisfied that plaintiff has proved his case and hence suit is liable to be decreed with costs.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Produced as proof of the plaintiffs being represented by Mr. George Joseph.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the plaintiffs' ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Support for the plaintiffs' ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further evidence of the plaintiffs' title to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Report
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Report confirming the plaintiffs' claims regarding the pathway.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Commissioner's Report
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provides findings from the commission about the property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Judgment
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Judgment supporting the plaintiffs' position in a related case.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Decree
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Legal decree affirming the plaintiffs' rights.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Document
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further evidence supporting plaintiffs' claims.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type: Document
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Additional document related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type: Survey Sketch
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy illustrating property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.A11
Document Type: Basic Tax Register
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates ownership details related to the B schedule.
Reference:
Ext.A12
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Defendant's document showing property boundary.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Evidence related to the defendant's claims.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Further evidence of defendant's title.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Document supporting the defendant's assertion.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Further evidence regarding usage of the pathway.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Re Survey Sketch
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Sketch indicating property demarcation.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Report from the court regarding the property inspection.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Illustrates property layout as part of the court report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Oral Evidence
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Witness testimonies provided during the hearing.
Reference:

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Wed, 01/01/2014 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases