Case Summary
The plaintiff, P Shanmughan, claims ownership of a flat based on a will from the deceased, P. Ramachandran. The defendant, Sarath Chandran, disputes this claim, asserting that the will is invalid and that the legal heirs were not included in the lawsuit.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, ruling that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff did not prove his possession over the property in question.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to prove possession and the legal heirs were not made parties to the suit.
The plaintiff failed to prove possession and the legal heirs were not made parties to the suit.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff failed to prove possession and the legal heirs were not made parties to the suit.
The plaintiff failed to prove possession and the legal heirs were not made parties to the suit.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has failed to prove possession over the plaint schedule property which in turn leads to the inference that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the injunction as sought for.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- P Shanmughan
- Party Age
- 44
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sarath Chandran
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of sale deed executed on 01.03.2008, Original will executed in favour of plaintiff on 06.07.2017
Defendants Documents
True copy of the communication made by Mrs. Bhagyalakshmi Nair to SHO, Town Police Station, Kozhikode, Attested copy of the Visitors Register
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. MG Ashokan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Shyam Padman
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt.Haritha Haridas
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt.Navjyothi S
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt.Aswathi Shyam
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Vishnu Narayanan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the defendant to prevent interference with possession of the plaint schedule flat.
Evidence:
Considering the same, I find that the suit as framed as of now is not maintainable. The plaintiff has failed to prove possession over the plaint schedule property which in turn leads to the inference that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the injunction as sought for.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Will
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is claimed by the plaintiff to be the basis for his ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This exhibit is a certified copy of the sale deed executed between Skyline builders and Ramachandran.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Communication
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document is a true copy of the communication made by Mrs. Bhagyalakshmi Nair to SHO regarding the intention to restrict access to the flat.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Visitors Register
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document evidences the entries of the plaintiff in the visitors register showing his presence at the flat.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Mail
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This true copy of the mail sent by Bhagyalakshmi requests to save CCTV footage regarding the plaintiff's visits.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Complaint
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This mail sent by Mrs. Bhagyalakshmi to the DCP is a complaint against the plaintiff, providing context for the dispute.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document authorizes the defendant to represent the legal heirs of late P. Ramachandran.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This is a notarized copy of a power of attorney executed in favor of the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type:
Bank statement
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document evidences the payment transaction of Mrs. Rukmini Mangalassery regarding the skyline Oceanic Apartment.
Reference:
Ext.B8
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between P Shanmughan vs Sarath Chandran regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between P Shanmughan vs Sarath Chandran regarding permanent prohibitory injunction