Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No.34 9/2012

Case between Babu et al vs Bhagyalakshmi et al regarding declaration of right of way by easement by prescription and prohibitory injunction.

Court
Court of Munsiff, Ernakulam
Judge
Smt. Needi. K. Dinamany.
Order Date
2025-02-17
Duration
approximately-12 years 0 days

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, including Babu and others, claim a right of way over a pathway used for more than 30 years. The defendants, heirs of Ratnakaran, contest this claim, asserting no existing easement rights.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the suit as the plaintiffs failed to prove their easement claim over the pathway. The defendants successfully contested the existence of any easement rights.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs did not meet the legal requirements to establish easement by prescription.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, 1) Suit is dismissed. 2) Plaintiff is directed to pay cost of the suit to defendant.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Babu (52 years) Pulikkaparambil, Elamakkara Kara, Edappally South Village, Cochin- 682026. Sulochana (60 years) Plasseripparambil, Elamakkara Kara, Edappally South Village, Cochin- 682026. Yamuna P N (48 years) Plasseripparambil, Elamakkara Kara, Edappally South Village, Cochin- 682026. Saira Banu (47 years) Plasseripparambil, Elamakkara, Edappally South Village, Kochi. Rajesh P A (45 years) Plasseripparambil, Elamakkara, Edappally South Village, Kochi.

Defendants

Bhagyalakshmi (70 years) Mullapparambil, Amaravathi, Fort Cochin, Kochi Taluk. Anil (55 years) Mullapparambil, Amaravathi, Fort Cochin, Kochi Taluk. Ashokan (52 years) Mullapparambil, Amaravathi, Fort Cochin, Kochi Taluk. Ajith (50 years) Mullapparambil, Amaravathi, Fort Cochin, Kochi Taluk. Asha (56 years) Mullapparambil, Amaravathi, Fort Cochin, Kochi Taluk.

Reliefs

Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a decree declaring their right of easement over the E schedule pathway.
Evidence:
The plaintiff has failed to prove the essentials of easement by prescription.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction restraining defendants from obstructing the pathway.
Evidence:
Plaintiff has no right to claim injunction against the defendants.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The 2nd plaintiff is the owner of plaint B schedule property by virtue of this sale deed.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This partition deed relates to the property ownership and rights of the parties involved.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This settlement deed relates to the property ownership and rights of the parties involved.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This sale deed relates to the property ownership and rights of the parties involved.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This sale deed supports the claim of the 1st plaintiff as absolute owner of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This partition deed establishes the ownership rights related to the contested properties.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Photograph
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Photographic evidence related to the property was presented by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Photograph
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Photographic evidence related to the property was presented by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Photograph
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Photographic evidence related to the property was presented by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Photograph
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Photographic evidence related to the property was presented by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Photograph
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Photographic evidence related to the property was presented by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Photograph
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Photographic evidence related to the property was presented by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type: Photograph
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Photographic evidence related to the property was presented by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of the complaint with acknowledgment from Kalamassery Police station.
Reference:
Ext.B25
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This commission report was a key piece of evidence concerning the pathway.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This commission report provided information relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.C2

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Sun, 01/01/2012 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases