Case Summary
Vivek Bennet, the plaintiff, is seeking an injunction to prevent Laisa Krenzlin, the defendant, from encumbering property. The case involves disputes over wills and ownership rights to the property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Interim injunction against the defendant and her associates
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court granted an interim injunction against the defendant, prohibiting her from encumbering the property or creating documents related to it until further orders.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found a prima facie case in favor of the petitioner, noting the non-production of the contested Wills by the defendant.
The court found a prima facie case in favor of the petitioner, noting the non-production of the contested Wills by the defendant.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found a prima facie case in favor of the petitioner, noting the non-production of the contested Wills by the defendant.
The court found a prima facie case in favor of the petitioner, noting the non-production of the contested Wills by the defendant.
Supporting Evidence
The non-production of even a copy of the Will number 103/2018 raises a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. Evidently, the balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner.
Judgment Evidence:
An order of interim injunction is passed, restraining respondent and her men from encumbering the plaint schedule property or creating any documents pertaining to plaint schedule property based on Will No.103/2018 of SRO, Edappally and Will No. 92 /2022 of SRO, Edappally, until further orders, from the date of this order.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Vivek Bennet
- Party Age
- 36
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Laisa Krenzlin
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Will No. 130/2015, Certified copy of the Order in OP (Probate) 192/2023
Defendants Documents
Copy of the Will No. 92/2022
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- B. M Ajith
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Dominic Johnson
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K.R Vinod
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- M. S Letha
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Anu Rose
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Aswin Venugopal
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Kurian Maxie
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Temporary Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Interim injunction restraining the respondent and her men from encumbering the plaint schedule property based on Will No. 103/2018 and Will No. 92/2022.
Evidence:
An order of interim injunction is passed restraining respondent and her men from encumbering the plaint schedule property or creating any documents pertaining to plaint schedule property based on Will No.103/2018 of SRO, Edappally and Will No. 92 /2022 of SRO, Edappally.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Will
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Will No. 130/2015 showing ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Order
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the order in OP (Probate) 192/2023.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Will
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of Will No. 92/2022 produced by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Vivek Bennet vs Laisa Krenzlin regarding injunction on property rights
Case Code Year
Case between Vivek Bennet vs Laisa Krenzlin regarding injunction on property rights