Case Summary
Biju Antony is the plaintiff seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against George and others. The case concerns the obstruction of a pathway used by the plaintiff to access his property, with the defendants allegedly constructing a wall that obstructs this access.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from altering the nature and condition of plaint B schedule pathway and obstructing ingress and egress of plaintiff to plaint A schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting him the right to use the pathway and ordering the removal of the wall constructed by the defendants. The defendants are also restrained from obstructing the plaintiff's access to his property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff proved he has an easement by grant over the pathway.
The plaintiff proved he has an easement by grant over the pathway.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff proved he has an easement by grant over the pathway.
The plaintiff proved he has an easement by grant over the pathway.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence would show that plaintiff has easement by grant over plaint B schedule pathway and defendants have obstructed the enjoyment of the same and constructed a wall therein.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms: 1) Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from altering the nature and condition of plaint B schedule pathway and obstructing ingress and egress of plaintiff to plaint A schedule property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Biju Antony
- Party Age
- 43
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- George
- Party Age
- 73
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Joby
- Party Age
- 37
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Xavier
- Party Age
- 46
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Original Sale Deed No 3916/1996, Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 3915/1996, Original Sale Deed No. 431/2005, Basic Tax receipt No, KL07021408944/2022, Printout of Photographs (5 Nos)
Defendants Documents
Rough Sketch (2 Nos), Attested copy resurvey sketch issued from Village Officer, Maradu, Photographs (6 Nos), Attested copy of Sale Deed No. 4652/2003 of SRO, Maradu, Copy of Consent
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Ajith George
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Antony Shyju
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sebin Thomas
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Jayabal.B
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- N.C. Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- M.P. Rexy
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from altering the nature and condition of plaint B schedule pathway.
Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms: 1) Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from altering the nature and condition of plaint B schedule pathway and obstructing ingress and egress of plaintiff to plaint A schedule property.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are directed by a mandatory injunction to remove the plaint C schedule wall.
Evidence:
2) Defendants are directed by a mandatory injunction to remove the plaint C schedule wall, within two months failing which plaintiff can seek to execute the same through court at the expense of defendants.
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are directed to pay the costs of the suit to plaintiffs.
Evidence:
3) Defendants are directed to pay the cost of the suit to plaintiffs.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Plaintiff's father purchased property and right of way over plaint B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed under which 1st defendant purchased the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Plaintiff obtained property from his father.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Basic Tax receipt issued from Village Office, Maradu.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Printout of Photographs
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Photographs relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Rough sketch of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Resurvey Sketch
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Attested copy of resurvey sketch issued from Village Officer, Maradu.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Photographs
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Photographs relevant to the defendants' claim.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Attested copy of sale deed of 2003 pertaining to the property.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Consent
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of consent relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report filed by Adv. T.K. Babu.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch filed by Adv. T.K. Babu.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Oral evidence of PW1 and PW2.
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 Biju Antony vs George et al regarding injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Biju Antony vs George et al regarding injunction