Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No. 1329/2018

Case between G Radhakrishnan vs M/s Goodhome Pvt. Ltd. et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-11-29
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

G Radhakrishnan, the plaintiff, filed a suit against M/s Goodhome Pvt. Ltd. and its managing director B R Ajit, along with Devi Ajit, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction. The plaintiff claims ownership over a property and seeks protection against the defendants, who allegedly threatened to demolish his boundaries and trespass.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the suit, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the excess land claimed and could not establish a right for the requested injunction.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the excess land claimed and could not establish a right for the requested injunction.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff could not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of ownership over the property and the alleged excess land.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has not stated how he has obtained the said excess land...the extent of the land possessed and owned by plaintiff is seen only as 7.50 cents.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is dismissed with costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
G Radhakrishnan
Party Age
60
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
M/s Goodhome Pvt. Ltd.
Relation
Represented by
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
B R Ajit
Party Age
65
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Devi Ajit
Party Age
60
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Sale deed no: 1213/1991 of Thripunithura SRO, Land tax paid receipts, Possession certificate.
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of Sale Deed No: 1213/1991 of Thripunithura SRO.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
K C Charles
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Vimal K Charles
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Renju A T
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
P T Girijan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Usha Narayanan
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from trespassing.
Evidence:
Hence issue no 3 is found against plaintiff and plaintiff is not entitled to a decree as prayed for.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Plaintiff claims ownership of the property by virtue of this sale deed.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Land tax paid receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
These receipts show that the plaintiff has been paying land tax regularly for the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2 to A5
Document Type: Possession Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This certificate is evidence of the plaintiff's possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Loan Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The loan agreement relates to the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A13
Document Type: Master Plan
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The master plan shows the location of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A14
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This report identifies the plaint schedule property and its boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The report confirms the status and boundaries of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C2 series

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between G Radhakrishnan vs M/s Goodhome Pvt. Ltd. et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between G Radhakrishnan vs M/s Goodhome Pvt. Ltd. et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Sat, 11/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 11/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Janeefer Mariam vs Kerala Film Producers Association regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.
Court of the Munsiff, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between V.Thulaseedharan Pillai et al vs Prof. Sourier Sebastian et al regarding declaration and injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between New Town Heights, Kakkanad Condominium, Owners Welfare Society vs M/s DLF Southern Towns Pvt. Ltd. et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Purushan O K vs Soman et al regarding injunction
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Kochuthressia Thomas vs Gopalan, Kalidasan regarding recovery of possession and injunction.
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Defendant Won