O.S. No. 555/2020

Case between Thomas et al vs Anil Kumar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court

COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM

Judge

Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany

Order Date

2025-12-20

Duration

Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Thomas and Midhun Thomas, seek a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, Anil Kumar and Sheeja, regarding the use of a pathway adjacent to the property. The plaintiffs claim ownership of the pathway and allege that the defendants are attempting to unlawfully sell part of their property by misrepresenting access to this pathway.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won

Interim Order

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and the defendants' counter claim for money. The court found that the plaintiffs did not have exclusive rights over the disputed pathway.

Judgment Favored

Defendant

Relief Granted

Case Type

Civil Suit

Final Judgment

Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs could not establish exclusive rights over the property claimed in the suit.

Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs could not establish exclusive rights over the property claimed in the suit.

Supporting Evidence

The court found that the plaintiff has no exclusive right over the plaint C schedule property as alleged by him.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, 1) Suit is dismissed with costs. 2) Counter claim is dismissed with costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Thomas
Party Age: 61
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Midhun Thomas
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Anil Kumar
Party Age: 53
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Sheeja
Party Age: 51
Relation: W/o

Plaintiffs Documents

Certified copies of Gift deed no: 1831/1989, Sale deed no: 2735/2001, Settlement no: 2556/1995, Sale deed no: 2023/2021.

Defendants Documents

Certified copies of Sale deed no: 1656/2005, Sale deed no: 1653/2005, Sale deed no: 1654/2005, Sale deed no: 1655/2005.

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: OJ Alfred
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: M S Unnikrishnan
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Denny Joseph
Appearance Type: Assisting Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Aleena Maria Jose
Appearance Type: Assisting Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Ardra Krishnan M
Appearance Type: Assisting Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Diya Merin Biju
Appearance Type: Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction

Outcome: Refused

Description:

Plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the C schedule pathway.

Evidence:

Therefore plaintiff cannot claim a suit for injunction especially when the right of way over the property was given to the other parties and plaintiff has no exclusive possession over plaint C schedule pathway.

Relief Type: Recovery

Outcome: Refused

Description:

Plaintiffs denied defendants' counter claim for recovery of expenses amounting to Rs. 50,000/- for unnecessary litigation.

Evidence:

Therefore, collecting supporting documents is a consequential outcome only.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Gift Deed

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Certified copy of Gift deed no: 1831/1989 of Mulanthuruthy SRO

Reference:

Ext.A1

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Certified copy of Sale deed no: 2735/2001 of Mulanthuruthy SRO

Reference:

Ext.A2

Document Type: Settlement Deed

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Certified copy of Settlement no: 2556/1995 of Mulanthuruthy SRO

Reference:

Ext.A3

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Certified copy of Sale deed no: 2023/2021 of Mulanthuruthy SRO

Reference:

Ext.A4

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

Certified copy of Sale deed no: 1656/2005 of SRO Mulanthuruthy

Reference:

Ext.B1

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

Certified copy of Sale deed no: 1653/2005 of SRO Mulanthuruthy

Reference:

Ext.B2

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

Certified copy of Sale deed no: 1654/2005 of SRO Mulanthuruthy

Reference:

Ext.B3

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

Certified copy of Sale deed no: 1655/2005 of SRO Mulanthuruthy

Reference:

Ext.B4

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

Certified copy of Sale deed no: 794/2007 of SRO Mulanthuruthy

Reference:

Ext.B5

Document Type: Thandaper Register

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

Relevant page of Thandaper Register in Re Survey no: 151/2020 of Village Office Kanayannur Group

Reference:

Ext.B6

Document Type: Settlement Deed

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

Certified copy of Settlement deed no: 3065/2008 of SRO Mulamthuruthy

Reference:

Ext.B7

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

Certified copy of Sale deed no: 1560/1982 of SRO Mulamthuruthy

Reference:

Ext.B8

Document Type: Encumbrance certificate

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

Encumbrance certificate issued by SRO Mulanthuruthy

Reference:

Ext.B9

Document Type: KDIS Document

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

08.08.2003 KDIS No: 3074/03/82, issued by Additional Tahasildar Kanayannur Taluk

Reference:

Ext.B10

Document Type: Photograph

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

Photograph

Reference:

Ext.B11(a)

Document Type: Photograph

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

Photograph

Reference:

Ext.B11(b)

Document Type: Photograph

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

Photograph

Reference:

Ext.B11(c)

Document Type: Photograph

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

Photograph

Reference:

Ext.B11(d)

Document Type: Commission Report

Submitted By: Court

Relevance:

14.09.2020 Commission report in IA 2/2020

Reference:

Ext.C1

Document Type: Rough Sketch

Submitted By: Court

Relevance:

Rough Sketch

Reference:

Ext.C1(a)

Document Type: Oral Evidence

Submitted By: Oral evidence

Relevance:

Testimony provided by the witnesses PW1, PW2 for plaintiffs and DW1 for defendants.

Reference:

Case Classification

Case Type

Civil Suit

Case between Thomas et al vs Anil Kumar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Judgement document from eCourt website

Case Summary

Judgment Outcome

Judgment Evidence:

Parties Involved

Parties

Advocates

Reliefs

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Quick Facts

Involved Entities

Similar Cases