Case Summary
The plaintiff, Cicily, is seeking a decree for the fixation of the boundary of her property, which she claims has been obstructed by the defendants. The defendants, including M/s Chinamaya Vidyalaya and others, contest the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the property in question.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Fixation of boundary and a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from causing obstruction.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting her the fixation of the boundary and a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from obstructing her property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff proved her ownership and possession over the property via valid title deeds and supported by evidence.
The plaintiff proved her ownership and possession over the property via valid title deeds and supported by evidence.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff proved her ownership and possession over the property via valid title deeds and supported by evidence.
The plaintiff proved her ownership and possession over the property via valid title deeds and supported by evidence.
Supporting Evidence
The learned counsel for plaintiff further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidhyadhar v. Mankikrao and another AIR 1999 SC 1441 wherein it is held that when a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box, an adverse inference would arise against him by virtue of Section 114 illustration (g) of Indian Evidence Act and contended that in the instant case the defendant has not mounted the box to prove veracity of his contention.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed with costs as follows: 1) The plaintiff is entitled for fixation of boundary as per Plots A, B, B1, C and D as per Exhibit C2 commission report and Exhibit C2(a) plan. 2) The plaintiff is also entitled for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing any obstruction or construction of compound wall through the demarcated boundaries of the property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Cicily
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- W/o Immanuel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- The Administrator, M/s Chinamaya Vidyalaya
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- The Managing Director, M/s Heavenly Homes
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Somaraj V V
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- S/o K Velu
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sani Francis
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o K C Francis
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Stella Poduthas
- Party Age
- 77
- Relation
- W/o Manual Poduthas
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Sale deed no. 3098/1983, Certified copy of Sale deed no. 275/1983, Land tax receipt for the Period 2014 - 2015.
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of Sale deed no. 8174/2005, Certified copy of the Sale deed no. 398/2005.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K R Vinod
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M S Letha
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- V A Johnson
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Letha Anand
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- George K Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- C I Abraham
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Jose Kuriakose
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Peeyus A Kottam
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Fixation of Boundary
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiff sought a decree for fixation of boundary of the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has proved his case and he is entitled for a decree as prayed for with costs.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiff requested a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to prevent obstruction in the construction of a compound wall along the demarcated boundaries.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is also entitled for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing any obstruction or construction of compound wall through the demarcated boundaries of the property.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as the title deed evidencing the plaintiff's ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is a prior deed that supports the plaintiff's claim of ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document indicates the land tax payment by the plaintiff, reinforcing her claim of ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is related to a transfer of property important for establishing boundary claims.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is another sale deed relevant to the ownership of the property in dispute.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is a prior deed connected to the title claims of both the plaintiff and the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document is the sale deed used by the defendant to claim ownership of property adjacent to the plaintiff's.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document is another sale deed related to the property claimed by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document shows the tax paid for the property by the defendant, supporting their claim.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Possession Certificate
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document certifies possession of land by the defendant, relevant in asserting their property claim.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Location Sketch
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This sketch is important for demonstrating the property boundaries in relation to the claims.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Tax Register Page
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This page from the tax register provides evidence related to the defendant's claim over certain lands.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Possession Certificate
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document certifies possession of property by the defendant, further backing their assertions.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report outlines the findings from the commission appointed to identify the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This sketch illustrates the demarcated boundaries relevant to the case proceedings.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
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 Cicily vs The Administrator, M/s Chinamaya Vidyalaya et al regarding fixation of boundary.
Case Code Year
Case between Cicily vs The Administrator, M/s Chinamaya Vidyalaya et al regarding fixation of boundary.