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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 1159/2018

Case between V.A.Sreekandan Nair vs Dr.Mathew M Mandoli regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M.
Order Date
2025-07-07
Duration
approximately-6 years 7 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, V.A.Sreekandan Nair, is seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction against the defendant, Dr.Mathew M Mandoli, regarding property rights over pathways. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant illegally constructed a compound wall and blocked access to the pathways, while the defendant claims ownership through adverse possession.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit is dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish the cause of action or prove ownership. The court found that the defendant's possession of the property was adverse and continuous, thus supporting his claim of ownership.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The defendant successfully proved adverse possession over the properties in question.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is dismissed.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

V.A.Sreekandan Nair (66 years years) Madhunandanam, behind Althara temple, Malayankeezhu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram

Defendants

Dr.Mathew M Mandoli (42 years years) Mandoli house, Kadavanthra Desom, Elamkulam village, Kanayannur taluk, Ernakulam District

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant's actions.
Evidence:
The suit for permanent prohibitory injunction is clearly barred by law of limitation.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to remove alleged obstructions.
Evidence:
The mandatory injunction sought by the plaintiff is not maintainable, given the facts.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Produced to show the plaintiff's previous ownership of the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Produced to establish the chain of ownership leading to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Unknown
Relevance:
Marked subject to proof to show the lie and nature of plaint B and C schedule properties.
Reference:
Ext.A3(a) and A3(b)
Document Type: Certified Copy of the plaint
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Provided to show the defendant's claim in relation to the ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Certified Copy of the written statement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Filed to present the defendant's arguments in the related case.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Filed subject to proof to assert the existence of the boundary wall.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Filed subject to proof in relation to the status of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Interim Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Filed subject to proof to assess the conditions on site.
Reference:
Ext.C1

Quick Facts

Location
ERNAKULAM
Case Filed
Fri, 10/12/2018 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases