Case Summary
The plaintiff, Ashok Babu, claims the right to use a pathway for more than 23 years to reach his property. The defendants, including Mary Joseph, contest this claim by denying the existence of the pathway.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for injunction.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the path claimed for over 23 years.
The plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the path claimed for over 23 years.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the path claimed for over 23 years.
The plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the path claimed for over 23 years.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff had not proved the existence of plaint schedule Item No. 3 way through the northern side of the plaint schedule Item No. 2 property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Ashok Babu
- Party Age
- 49
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mary Joseph
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Joy
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of Sale Deed no. 1779/2013, Tax Receipt.
Defendants Documents
Copy of Sale Deed no. 1899/1996, Copy of Sale Deed no. 2913/1996.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Saji Koduvathu
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Avaneesh V N
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought to restrain the defendants from causing obstruction to the use of the plaint schedule Item No.3 way.
Evidence:
Hence the relief claimed for cannot be allowed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The plaintiff obtained property having an extent of 1.21 are through this sale deed.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This receipt shows that the plaintiff was paying tax for the property having an extent of 1.21 ares.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This is the prior deed of Ext.A1.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This deed transferred property having an extent of 2.02 ares to Mary Joseph.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This deed is related to the previous owner Luka.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This receipt shows that the defendants are paying tax with respect to their property.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This receipt was executed by Luka.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report was prepared by the Advocate Commissioner who visited the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This plan was prepared by the Advocate Commissioner who had visited the property.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Injunction and Access Rights
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between Ashok Babu vs Mary Joseph et al regarding injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Ashok Babu vs Mary Joseph et al regarding injunction.