Case Summary
The plaintiff, Alexander Mathew, is involved in a dispute concerning ownership and rights to an apartment complex against multiple defendants. The case revolves around a sale deed and potential illegal claims on property by the defendants.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction and costs of the suit
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found that the plaintiff established ownership and possession through unchallenged evidence.
The court found that the plaintiff established ownership and possession through unchallenged evidence.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed partly on the following terms. 1) It is hereby declared that sale deed No.3090/1997 of Edappally SRO executed by the 2nd to 4th defendants in favour of 1st defendant is null and void and the same is not binding on the plaintiff.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Alexander Mathew (69 years)
1308, McClure Avenue, Elmont, NY11003
Abraham George (44 years)
2C, Mangalam Towers, Vennala, Kochi
Defendants
BPL US West Cellular Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd (Age not specified years)
BPL Telecom Center No. 54, Richmond Street, Bangalore- 560025
Mangalam Home and Resorts Pvt. Ltd (Age not specified years)
Mangalam Complex, S H Mount, Kottayam
Mr. Sajan Varghese (53 years)
Mangalappattil House, Muttambalam, Kottayam
Mr. Saji Varghese (52 years)
Mangalappattil House, Muttambalam, Kottayam
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The sale deed No.3090/1997 is declared null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.
Evidence:
It is hereby declared that sale deed No.3090/1997 of Edappally SRO executed by the 2nd to 4th defendants in favour of 1st defendant is null and void and the same is not binding on the plaintiff.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are restrained from claiming rights over the plaint B schedule property.
Evidence:
Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from claiming any right, title and possession of the plaint B schedule property.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are directed to pay costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
Evidence:
Defendants are directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiff.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the authority of Abraham George to represent the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This sale deed demonstrates the plaintiff's ownership of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Agreement for Construction
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This agreement outlines the terms under which the construction of the apartment complex was arranged.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Minutes of AGM
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document signifies the acknowledgment of ownership by the plaintiff and the association's decisions.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This deed illustrates the disputed transaction executed without the plaintiff's consent.
Reference:
Ext.A5