Case Summary
Aneesh A B, a police constable, is seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against A G Sindhukumar and Nalini Gopalakrishnan regarding access to a road used for ingress and egress to his property in Kakkanad. The plaintiff claims the road has been used for over 40 years, while the defendants deny its existence.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from trespassing on 'B' schedule road.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from trespassing on the 'B' schedule road and obstructing the plaintiff's access to his property. The defendants were also ordered to pay costs of the suit.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found sufficient unchallenged oral and documentary evidence to establish the existence of the 'B' schedule road and the plaintiff's easement rights over it.
The court found sufficient unchallenged oral and documentary evidence to establish the existence of the 'B' schedule road and the plaintiff's easement rights over it.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found sufficient unchallenged oral and documentary evidence to establish the existence of the 'B' schedule road and the plaintiff's easement rights over it.
The court found sufficient unchallenged oral and documentary evidence to establish the existence of the 'B' schedule road and the plaintiff's easement rights over it.
Supporting Evidence
The court is satisfied that plaint B schedule property exists as alleged by plaintiff and it is a motorable road used by plaintiff and predecessor for more than 40 years. Ext.A1 would show the existence of right of easement by grant over the plaint B schedule pathway.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms. 1) 1st and 2nd defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing to plaint B schedule road and to make obstruction to ingress and egress of the plaintiff to plaint A schedule property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Aneesh A B
- Party Age
- 31
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- A G Sindhukumar
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Nalini Gopalakrishnan
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- W/o Late
Plaintiffs Documents
Sale Deed No.3491/2006, Partition Deed No.1448/1979, Partition Deed No.519/1988, Sale Deed No.2118/2009, Sale Deed No.865/2015
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Legy Abraham
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Jayashankar G
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P M Benson
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing on the 'B' schedule road.
Evidence:
The 1st and 2nd defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing to plaint B schedule road and to make obstruction to ingress and egress of the plaintiff to plaint A schedule property.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiff.
Evidence:
Defendants are directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiff.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows certified copy of the sale deed No.3491/2006 from Thrikkakara SRO, affirming the plaintiff's ownership and rights.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of partition deed No.1448/1979 from Edappally SRO, establishing the plaintiff's ancestral rights.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of partition deed No.519/1988 from Thrikkakara SRO, supporting the plaintiff's claims regarding land ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No.388/1984 from Thrikkakara SRO, relevant for demonstrating historical ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No.91/1986 from Thrikkakara SRO, part of the evidence of ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No.2118/2009 from Thrikkakara SRO, supporting the ongoing rights of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No.865/2015 from Thrikkakara SRO, confirming continuous rights.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Marked for reference to assist in the judgment regarding the plaintiff's claims.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Witness testimonies from PW1 and PW2 establish the existence and history of the 'B' schedule road.
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Aneesh A B vs A G Sindhukumar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Aneesh A B vs A G Sindhukumar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction