Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. 86/2018

Case between Unnikrishnan K vs Mohanan regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Judge
Smt. Smitha Susan Mathew
Order Date
2025-03-29
Duration
approximately-6 years 11 months 29 days
Case Code No.
86
Case Closed
Sat, 03/29/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Unnikrishnan K, is suing the defendant, Mohanan, for obstruction of natural water flow affecting his property. The case revolves around the construction done by the defendant, which allegedly interferes with the drainage system and causes flooding in the plaintiff's property.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed that the defendant is permanently restrained from obstructing the natural flow of water and directed the removal of a wall that hinders drainage. The plaintiff is also entitled to costs from the defendant.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction to remove the obstruction.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed that the defendant is permanently restrained from obstructing the natural flow of water and directed the removal of a wall that hinders drainage. The plaintiff is also entitled to costs from the defendant.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The evidence showed that the defendant obstructed the natural flow of water, which is not permissible.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The evidence showed that the defendant obstructed the natural flow of water, which is not permissible.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence available would show that the defendant obstructed the natural flow of the water. This is not allowable.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is granted restraining the defendant from making any construction on the southern boundary Kayyala of plaint schedule item No.1 property, committing any waste therein, or making any construction in item No. 2 that obstructs the flow of water through the item No. 3 drainage.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Unnikrishnan K
Party Age
61
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Mohanan
Party Age
65
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Sale deed No.5/1988, Land tax receipt No.KL05020404340/2024
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Chandrababu P.R.
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
K. Ajith
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Restraining the defendant from making any construction obstructing water flow.
Evidence:
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is granted restraining the defendant from making any construction on the southern boundary Kayyala of plaint schedule item No.1 property.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Directing the defendant to remove the concrete wall obstructing the natural flow of water.
Evidence:
A decree of mandatory injunction is granted directing the defendant to remove item No. 4 concrete wall constructed in item No.2, which obstructs the natural flow of water through item No.3, within 1 month from the date of the decree.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff entitled to costs of the suit.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is entitled to get the cost of the suit from the defendant and his assets.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proved title and possession over the plaint schedule item No.1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supported claim of possession over the plaint schedule item No.1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Mahazar
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Prepared and filed by Adv. Commissioner to support evidence on drainage.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Submitted along with commission report to illustrate property drainage.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Filed by Adv. Commissioner, confirmed drainage conditions affecting water flow.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Survey Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Illustrated property layout relevant to the drainage dispute.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kanjirappally
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S.
Case Code Year
2018

Quick Facts

Location
Kanjirappally Taluk
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kanjirappally
Case Filed
Thu, 03/29/2018 - 12:00
Case Closed
Sat, 03/29/2025 - 12:00
From
Sat, 03/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 04/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Manoj A.P. vs Udayakumar M.P., Ujakumari regarding suit dismissal
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Elsamma Kuriakose vs The Chief Manager (Authorised Officer) regarding dismissal of suit.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Johnson Joseph vs Raveendran @ Kunjumon et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Hellen Joseph vs Joji Thomas regarding realisation of money
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sheela Raju et al vs P.K. Madhu et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won