Case Summary
This suit is filed by the plaintiff for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing and damaging the plaintiff's properties. The defendants failed to appear in court, resulting in an ex parte judgment.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing and damaging the plaintiff's properties.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit ex parte in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.
Why Plaintiff Won:
Evidence established the plaintiff's possession of the property and unlawful acts of the defendants.
Evidence established the plaintiff's possession of the property and unlawful acts of the defendants.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The evidence of PW1, coupled with Exhibits A1 and A2, proves that the plaintiff derived title under the Will and has obtained Letters of Administration.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed ex parte as follows: a) The defendants and men under them are hereby restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from, trespassing into plaint schedule item one property, altering the nature of plaint schedule item 2 (Thondu), demolishing, damaging, or altering plaint schedule item 3 (Kayyala cum wall), widening the Thondu or taking vehicles through it, committing any act of waste or obstruction in plaint schedule items one to three.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Abraham K Eapen
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Santhosh
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Chinnamma
- Party Age
- 68
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of the order in OP (LA) No. 208 of 1990, Certified copy of the will deed, Tax Receipt from Pampady Village Office.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Jojo Thomas
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Restraint on the defendants from trespassing and damaging the plaintiff's property.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Direction for the defendants to maintain the Kayyala cum wall.
Evidence:
The defendants are directed to maintain the plaint schedule item 3 Kayyala cum wall in its present position without causing any damage.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Clarification that the plaintiff shall not obstruct pedestrian access to the Thondu.
Evidence:
It is clarified that the plaintiff shall not obstruct the use of plaint schedule item 2 (Thondu) by the defendants.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Entitlement of the plaintiff to costs of the suit.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Will Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Established the plaintiff's title to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Court Order
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provided evidence of the plaintiff's granted Letters of Administration.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demonstrated the plaintiff's continued payment of land tax.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Provided evidence regarding property condition.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Visual evidence related to the Commission Report.
Reference:
Ext.C1 (a)
Document Type:
Photographs and Pendrive
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Additional evidence regarding property condition.
Reference:
Ext.C1 (b)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Abraham K Eapen vs Santhosh et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Abraham K Eapen vs Santhosh et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction