Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Antony Varghese and Aney Antony, are seeking a decree for the fixation of boundaries concerning their joint owned property. The defendant, P.C. Jose, is accused of illegally claiming more land than he actually owns.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant from trespassing upon the plaintiff's property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, fixing the boundaries between the plaintiff and defendant properties and granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs proved their entitlement to the fixation of boundaries through sufficient documentary evidence and the failure of the defendant to provide any counter-evidence.
The plaintiffs proved their entitlement to the fixation of boundaries through sufficient documentary evidence and the failure of the defendant to provide any counter-evidence.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs proved their entitlement to the fixation of boundaries through sufficient documentary evidence and the failure of the defendant to provide any counter-evidence.
The plaintiffs proved their entitlement to the fixation of boundaries through sufficient documentary evidence and the failure of the defendant to provide any counter-evidence.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence presented by the plaintiffs conclusively established the boundaries and demonstrated that the defendant had no valid claim to expand his property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: The northern boundary of the Plaint A Schedule properties separating with Plaint B schedule properties is fixed along the straight line ‘C’ and ‘inverted D ‘Ɑ’ as shown in Ext. C2(b) Plan.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Antony Varghese
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Aney Antony
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- P.C. Jose
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copies of sale deeds No.1079/2004, No.1349/2004, No.709/2011, and No.744/2011, property tax receipts.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Dr. V.N. Sankarjee
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- V.N. Madhusudanan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Keerthi B. Chandran
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Biju Abraham
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Asha B. Mathews
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Fixation of boundary separating plaint A schedule properties from plaint B schedule properties.
Evidence:
The northern boundary of the Plaint A Schedule properties is fixed along the straight line ‘C’ and ‘inverted D ‘Ɑ’ as shown in Ext. C2(b) Plan.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Restraining the defendant from trespassing upon plaint A schedule properties.
Evidence:
The defendant and any persons claiming title under him... are restrained by way of a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing upon plaint A schedule properties, from destroying its boundary and also from causing obstruction to the plaintiffs from constructing compound wall or fencing on the boundary of the plaint A schedule properties.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendant shall pay the cost of the suit to the plaintiffs.
Evidence:
It is general rule that cost shall follow the event and I do not find any reason to deviate from the said rule.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No.1079/2004 of the Maradu SRO.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No.1349/2004 of the Maradu SRO.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No.709/2011 of the Maradu SRO.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No.744/2011 of the Maradu SRO.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Property tax receipt for Poonithura Village.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Property tax receipt for Poonithura Village.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certificate issued by Village Officer Poonithura Village.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report prepared by Adv. Deepa Mohan in IA 6002/2019.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission Report in IA 03/2021.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Sketch related to the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Sketch related to the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C2(b)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Boundary Dispute
Case Code
Case between Antony Varghese vs P.C. Jose regarding fixation of boundary and consequential injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Antony Varghese vs P.C. Jose regarding fixation of boundary and consequential injunction.