Case Summary
Hitesh M. Kothari and Dharmesh M Kothari, plaintiffs, filed a case against N.S Ajas and others for a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent obstruction on their property access. The dispute centers on the access rights to their property and the defendants' claim of encroachment.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed both OS 11/2021 and OS 32/2021, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to establish their claim for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs did not prove entitlement to the requested relief.
The plaintiffs did not prove entitlement to the requested relief.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs have failed to establish that there has been any loss or endangerment to the lateral support enjoyed by the plaint schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, OS 11/2021 and OS 32/2021 stands dismissed. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Hitesh M. Kothari
- Party Age
- 47
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Dharmesh M Kothari
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- N.S Ajas
- Party Age
- 35
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- N.S Niyaz
- Party Age
- 32
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- N.S Siyaz
- Party Age
- 29
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- V.K Shamsudeen
- Party Age
- 65
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 769/2019, Land Tax Receipt issued by Village Officer, Vazhakkala, Property Tax paid receipt No. R-M 070900-24035654 issued by Thrikkakara Municipality
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of field sketch issued by Village Officer, Vazhakkala in respect of field No. 548, Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 2180/2017
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- A. Balagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- A. Rajagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M.N Manmadan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Karthika S. Varma
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- R. Rajesh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Aswhin K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sojo J.K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sreedas K.P
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Anil S. Raj
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Anila Peter
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P. Radhika Rajasekharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing access to the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The suit is one for simple injunction with respect to the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs requested a mandatory injunction directing defendants to restore lateral support to the compound wall.
Evidence:
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that there has been any loss or endangerment to the lateral support enjoyed by the plaint schedule property.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demonstrates payment of land tax, supporting the plaintiffs' claim to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Property Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates the plaintiffs' compliance with tax obligations related to their property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Field Sketch
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Provides evidence regarding property boundaries as claimed by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Identifies ownership and rights of the defendants concerning the disputed property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Documents findings from the advocate commissioner regarding property access and ownership.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Photographs
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Visual evidence supporting the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Further findings from the advocate commissioner addressing the plaintiffs' claims.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Photographs
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Visual evidence connected to the second commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Document Type:
CD
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Additional evidence produced by the advocate commissioner, subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.C2(b)
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Testimony given by witnesses supporting both parties' claims.
Reference:
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 Hitesh M. Kothari et al vs N.S Ajas et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Hitesh M. Kothari et al vs N.S Ajas et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.