Case Summary
The plaintiff, Thomas Dominic, seeks a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants who are alleged to be interfering with his property rights. The defendants are set exparte as they did not appear in court.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed that the defendants are permanently restrained from altering the lie and nature of the plaint schedule item No.2 and from obstructing the water flow and peaceful enjoyment of the plaint schedule item No.1 property by the plaintiff.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The evidence presented showed the defendants intended to claim possession and obstruct the plaintiff’s use of his property.
The evidence presented showed the defendants intended to claim possession and obstruct the plaintiff’s use of his property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The evidence of PW1 would show that defendants claimed possession over item No.2 and they will demolish the old kayyala and would take possession over item No.2 by constructing a new wall. This evidence remain unrebutted.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result the suit is decreed as follows: 1 The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from altering the lie and nature of plaint item No.2, causing obstruction to the flow of water through plaint schedule item No.2, obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of plaint schedule item No.1 property by the plaintiff and committing any waste therein.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Thomas Dominic
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Jessy Varghese
- Party Age
- 56
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rosamma
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Treesa Johnson @ Gracyklutty Johnson
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Cicily Maria @ Cicilykutty
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Elsykutty Thomas
- Party Age
- 64
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Ext.A1, original sale deed No.1052/1985 of SRO, Kanjirappally; Ext.A2, land tax receipt; Ext.A3, resurvey plan showing the location of plaint item No.1 and 2 properties; Ext. A4, tax receipt dated 30-03-2025.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sony Thomas
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Arya Surendran
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M.A. Ribinsha
- Appearance Type
- Government Pleader
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from altering the lie and nature of plaint item No.2.
Evidence:
In the result the suit is decreed as follows: 1 The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from altering the lie and nature of plaint item No.2, causing obstruction to the flow of water through plaint schedule item No.2, obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of plaint schedule item No.1 property by the plaintiff and committing any waste therein.
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff is entitled to get the cost of the suit from defendants and their assets.
Evidence:
2. Plaintiff is entitled to get the cost of the suit from defendants and their assets.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original sale deed No.1052/1985 of SRO, Kanjirappally, establishing plaintiff's ownership over item No.1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Land tax receipt showing payment for the property owned by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Resurvey Plan
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Resurvey plan showing the location of plaint items No.1 and No.2 properties.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt dated 30-03-2025 reinforcing plaintiff's ownership and tax payments for the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Mahazar
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Mahazar prepared by Commissioner indicating the existing condition of item No.2 property and its surroundings.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Sketch prepared by Commissioner illustrating the existence of an edathondu between item No.1 property and the properties of defendants.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kanjirappally
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S
Case Code Year
2023