Case Summary
Suber M.I. filed a suit against Sigil T.P. and Firaz p. for a perpetual injunction to prevent unlawful trespass into his building. The plaintiff claims he is the owner of the building and fears the defendants will disrupt his peaceful possession.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Perpetual Injunction
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed a perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from trespassing upon the building. The plaintiff is entitled to recover costs from the first defendant.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The unrebutted oral testimony and evidence submitted by the plaintiff established his ownership of the building.
The unrebutted oral testimony and evidence submitted by the plaintiff established his ownership of the building.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The unrebutted oral testimony and evidence submitted by the plaintiff established his ownership of the building.
The unrebutted oral testimony and evidence submitted by the plaintiff established his ownership of the building.
Supporting Evidence
The unrebutted oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 and A3 established his case as pleaded by him.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed as follows; A decree of perpetual Injunction is hereby passed restraining the 1st defendant and his agents from trespassing upon the scheduled building.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Suber M.I.
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sigil T.P.
- Party Age
- 35
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Firaz p.
- Party Age
- 31
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of settlement Deed No.624/2013, Original of building tax receipt dated 29.01.2020
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P.T. Binduraj
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
A decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing on the scheduled building.
Evidence:
A decree of perpetual Injunction is hereby passed restraining the 1st defendant and his agents from trespassing upon the scheduled building and also from committing any type of waste in the scheduled properties.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of settlement deed which establishes the plaintiff's ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original of building tax receipt admitted in evidence to support the plaintiff's claim.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of land tax receipt was filed but rejected for not meeting the requirements for secondary evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
The oral testimony of the plaintiff was relied upon to establish the claim.
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 Suber M.I. vs Sigil T.P. et al regarding Perpetual Injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Suber M.I. vs Sigil T.P. et al regarding Perpetual Injunction