Case Summary
The case involves Appukkuttan, who seeks an injunction against Kanjana and her claims to the property Appukkuttan claims to possess since 1984. The dispute arises from alleged attempts to evict Appukkuttan from the property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish the claim to possession of the property. The court found no evidence of harassment or eviction attempts by the defendants.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
Supporting Evidence
Judgment Evidence:
In the result suit is dismissed. Considering the nature and circumstance of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Appukkuttan
- Party Age
- 74
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kanjana
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
A1 28.02.2019 Certificate issued by the Village Office Koruthodu.
Defendants Documents
B1 29.12.2014 Certificate issued by the Village Office Koruthodu.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- D. Muraleedhar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sony Thomas
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to prevent eviction.
Evidence:
The suit is dismissed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Possession Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This certificate was produced to show the plaintiff's possession of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Possession Certificate
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This certificate was produced to show that the defendant's wife is in possession of a portion of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report was prepared by the Commissioner to provide an assessment of the situation regarding property possession.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This sketch prepared by the Commissioner helped visualize the layout of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Ownership Certificate
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Produced by the defendant to establish ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.X2
Document Type:
Tax Assessment Register
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
This document provided evidence of tax assessments related to the property in dispute.
Reference:
Ext.X3
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
This series of documents was used to support the claims of the defendant regarding ownership and taxes paid.
Reference:
Ext.X4(Series)
Document Type:
Panchayath Assessment Register
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
This extract was relevant to verify property ownership claims.
Reference:
Ext.X4(d)
Document Type:
Possession Certificate
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
This certificate issued by the Village Officer was produced to establish the first defendant's claim of possession.
Reference:
Ext.X5
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kanjirappally
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S
Case Code Year
2019