Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 275 / 2019

Case between Jose Antony vs K.D. Antony et al regarding declaration and consequential injunction.

Court
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Judge
Sri.Vivek.P, Principal Munsiff – I
Order Date
2025-02-17
Duration
approximately-5 years 3 months
Case Closed
Mon, 02/17/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Jose Antony is the plaintiff seeking a declaration that certain properties were purchased using his funds fraudulently by his father K.D. Antony and siblings. The case involves disputes over property ownership and claims of misrepresentation.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court declared that the properties in question belong to the plaintiff Jose Antony and were fraudulently registered in the name of his mother by the defendants. The court issued a permanent injunction against the defendants regarding the properties.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the properties.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court declared that the properties in question belong to the plaintiff Jose Antony and were fraudulently registered in the name of his mother by the defendants. The court issued a permanent injunction against the defendants regarding the properties.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The properties were purchased using the plaintiff's funds, but were registered in the names of the defendants without his knowledge.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The properties were purchased using the plaintiff's funds, but were registered in the names of the defendants without his knowledge.
Supporting Evidence
The preponderance of probability lies in favour of PW1 that the plaint schedule property covered by Ext. A1 was purchased using the funds belonging to him in the name of mother by DW1 and the 2nd defendant fraudulently and contrary to the directions by PW1 to purchase the property in his name.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs as follows: It is hereby declared that the plaint schedule property covered by the document bearing registration No. 757/12 of Kozhikode SRO, was purchased using the funds of the plaintiff and that the said document was fraudulently executed by the defendants No. 1 and 2 in the name of his mother Thankamma.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Jose Antony
Party Age
43
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
K.D. Antony
Party Age
79
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Anto Antony
Party Age
37
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
K.Mini Payas
Party Age
49
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Manju Saju
Party Age
47
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of jenmam assignment deed No.757/2012 of SRO Kozhikode, Certified copy of settlement deed No.248/2017, Copy of statement of account from SBI.
Defendants Documents
Demand notice issued by Income Tax Department, License agreements.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.P.A.Sajeed
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.P.Rajmohan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Smt.P.Mini
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Property covered by the document bearing registration No. 757/12 belongs to the plaintiff.
Evidence:
It is hereby declared that the plaint schedule property covered by the document bearing registration No. 757/12 of Kozhikode SRO, was purchased using the funds of the plaintiff...
Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The documents No. 578/16 and 248/17 are not binding upon the plaintiff.
Evidence:
It is hereby declared that document No. 578/16 and 248/17 of Kozhikode SRO are not binding upon the plaint schedule property...
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the scheduled properties.
Evidence:
The defendants No. 1 and 2 are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from alienating, encumbering or handing over the possession of the plaint schedule properties to 3rd parties.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Certified copy of Jenmam assignment deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves that the plaint schedule property was purchased using the funds belonging to the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Certified copy of Jenmam assignment deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates that the property was settled in favour of the first defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Certified Copy of Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the property was settled in favour of the second defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Copy of statement of account
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demonstrates the transfer of funds from the plaintiff’s account.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Passport
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Identity proof of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Passport
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Identity proof of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Driving License
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Identity proof of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: School ID card
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Evidence of the children’s schooling.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: School ID card
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Evidence of the children’s schooling.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Certificate issued by Office of the controller of insurance
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Evidence of insurance in the name of the mother.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Certificate issued by Office of the controller of insurance
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Evidence of insurance in the name of the mother.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type: Demand notice issued by Income Tax Department
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Evidence related to the financial status of the first defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type: Licence agreement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Agreement related to the business of the mother.
Reference:
Ext.B9
Document Type: License Agreement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Agreement related to the business of the mother.
Reference:
Ext.B10

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Fraud
Case Code
Case between Jose Antony vs K.D. Antony et al regarding declaration and consequential injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Jose Antony vs K.D. Antony et al regarding declaration and consequential injunction.

Quick Facts

Location
Kozhikode Taluk & District
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Case Filed
Sun, 02/17/2019 - 12:00
Case Closed
Mon, 02/17/2025 - 12:00
From
Sat, 02/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Mon, 03/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Hathikka KV vs Nisha regarding mandatory injunction and compensation.
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Girija vs Arunjith P et al regarding mandatory injunction and other connected reliefs.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Thottathil Pachukutty et al vs Thottathil Sulochana et al regarding recovery of possession of immovable property and mandatory injunction.
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Muraleedharan vs Premanandan et al regarding fixation of boundary and injunction
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Satheesh Charly vs The Calicut Cosmopolitan Club et al regarding declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Defendant Won