Case Summary
The plaintiff, Rajendran, is seeking a prohibitory injunction against the City Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram to prevent them from removing a portable bunk he claims to own. The defendant contends that the installation of this bunk is illegal and the plaintiff does not have the required license.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit filed by Rajendran for a permanent prohibitory injunction has been dismissed. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish a legitimate claim for the injunction sought.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to support his claim for an injunction.
The plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to support his claim for an injunction.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to support his claim for an injunction.
The plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to support his claim for an injunction.
Supporting Evidence
Upon a meaningful reading of the plaint and a review of the evidence on record, it can be seen that the plaintiff by indulging in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi and through clever drafting, have tried to mislead this Court by creating the illusion of a cause of action against the other side.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result: The suit is dismissed. No costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Rajendran
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- The City Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram
- Relation
- represented by its Secretary
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of the Sale Deed No.3040/19, Land tax receipt, Tax receipt, Copy of an application
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Vaikkom D Sajeev
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.B. Vasudevan Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff.
Evidence:
In light of the discussions in the foregoing issue, this court is of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the Sale Deed evidencing the plaintiff's title to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Land tax receipt demonstrating the payment of tax on the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt evidencing payment for the property by the previous owner.
Reference:
Ext.A2(a)
Document Type:
Application
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the application submitted for renewal of license in the plaintiff's name.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2020