Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S.No.345/2023

Case between T.P. Somasundaran vs C.K. Mathew, Omana Mathew regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Maneesha K Bhadran
Order Date
2024-01-12
Duration
Case Code No.
345
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves T.P. Somasundaran and the defendants C.K. Mathew and Omana Mathew regarding a dispute over an advertising board. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from dismantling the advertising board.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, issuing a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants concerning the advertising board. The defendants were also ordered to pay the costs of the suit.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, issuing a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants concerning the advertising board. The defendants were also ordered to pay the costs of the suit.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established his case through undisputed evidence.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff established his case through undisputed evidence.
Supporting Evidence
On perusal of the proof affidavit and documents produced, which remain unchallenged, I am satisfied that plaintiff has established his case. The unchallenged oral and documentary evidence is sufficient to grant a decree in favour of plaintiff.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from demolishing or dismantling the portion of plaint B schedule board in plaint A schedule property existing as per Ext.C1.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
T.P. Somasundaran
Party Age
71
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
C.K. Mathew
Party Age
65
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Omana Mathew
Party Age
60
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Ext.A1 is the copy of agreement dated 20.01.2018 between parties for installing advertisement board for three years for annual rent of Rs.75,000/-. Ext.A2 is the agreement dated 01.09.2021 extending the term of agreement for four months. Ext.A3 is the board site agreement form executed between plaintiff and 1st defendant.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Seby.J.Pullely
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Abhiram.P.P.
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Simi.V.S.
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Court
Advocate Name
Adv.Aryamol.A.T.
Appearance Type
Government Pleader

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendants are restrained from demolishing or dismantling the portion of plaint B schedule board in plaint A schedule property.
Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from demolishing or dismantling the portion of plaint B schedule board in plaint A schedule property existing as per Ext.C1.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendants are directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiff.
Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: Defendants are directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiff.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Ext.C1 shall form part of decree.
Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: Ext.C1 shall form part of decree.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of agreement dated 20.01.2018 between parties for installing advertisement board for three years for annual rent of Rs.75,000/-.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Agreement dated 01.09.2021 extending the term of agreement for four months.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Site Agreement Form
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Board site agreement form executed between plaintiff and 1st defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report identifying partial structure of plaint B schedule board and frames lying adjacent to the pillars therein.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch fortifying the existence of the structure reported in Ext.C1.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S.NO.
Case Code Year
2023

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Mon, 01/01/2024 - 12:00
To
Wed, 01/31/2024 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Rahath Hakkeem vs Rajani Sreekumar regarding mandatory injunction
II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Ajay Kumar Gupta et al vs Shajan Joseph.K.R. et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
II Additional Munsiff Court
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Smt. Baby Ravi vs Sajini Nandakumar regarding realization of money
II Additional Munsiff Court
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M/s. Metadata Technologies vs M/s. Smart City (Kochi) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. regarding suit not pressed.
II Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between V P Rajamma vs Devassy alias Thomas regarding restoration of suit
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won