Case Summary
V. N Ranganathan filed a suit against Sajeevan and Usha Sajeevan seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent them from obstructing his use of a pathway. The defendants counterclaimed, asserting their right to use the same pathway and accusing the plaintiff of obstructing their enjoyment.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the plaintiff and his agents from obstructing the smooth and peaceful enjoyment of the plaint B schedule pathway by the defendants and their family.
Case Type
Injunction
Final Judgment
No
The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, and the defendants were granted a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, allowing them to enjoy the pathway without obstruction.
Key Reasoning:
The counterclaim stood proved based on uncontested evidence presented by the defendants.
The counterclaim stood proved based on uncontested evidence presented by the defendants.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
From the uncontested evidence of the DW1 in the counterclaim, I am of the opinion that the case in the counterclaim stands proved. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence tendered by DW1 in the counterclaim.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed and the counterclaim is allowed as follows: a. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is passed by restraining the plaintiff and his agents from obstructing the smooth and peaceful enjoyment of the plaint B schedule pathway by the defendants and his family, as well as from committing any act of waste and mischief in the plaint B schedule property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- V. N Ranganathan
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sajeevan
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Usha Sajeevan
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of document No. 568/2001, Commission Report filed by the Adv. Commissioner Ratheesh M.B
Defendants Documents
Nil
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K. L Shyam
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- C.P Udayabhanu
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Varghese Vinu C.J
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Pratheeshkumar P.U
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the plaintiff and his agents from obstructing the smooth and peaceful enjoyment of the plaint B schedule pathway by the defendants and his family.
Evidence:
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is passed by restraining the plaintiff and his agents from obstructing the smooth and peaceful enjoyment of the plaint B schedule pathway by the defendants and his family.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Costs of the suit and counterclaim to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants.
Evidence:
The defendants are entitled to the costs of the suit and counterclaim from the plaintiff.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified copy of document
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Used to establish the plaintiff's claim over the plaint B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
File filed by the Adv. Commissioner to support the plaintiff's claim.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Provided visual evidence relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Injunction
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between V. N Ranganathan vs Sajeevan et al regarding injunction and consequential relief
Case Code Year
Case between V. N Ranganathan vs Sajeevan et al regarding injunction and consequential relief