Case Summary
David Pul has filed a suit against the State of Kerala and various government officials regarding the resurvey of his property boundaries, alleging that the resurvey was conducted improperly and that his property boundaries were incorrectly fixed. The defendants contend that the resurvey was executed correctly in accordance with the law.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit filed by David Pul, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish his claims regarding the improper resurvey of his property boundaries. The plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction.
Key Reasoning:
The suit was deemed barred by limitation and the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove that the resurvey was performed improperly.
The suit was deemed barred by limitation and the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove that the resurvey was performed improperly.
Why Defendant Won:
The suit was deemed barred by limitation and the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove that the resurvey was performed improperly.
The suit was deemed barred by limitation and the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove that the resurvey was performed improperly.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has not properly established that the re-survey had not taken place in a proper manner.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed. The defendants are entitled to the costs of the suit from the plaintiff.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- David Pul
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- State of Kerala
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- District Collector
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Superintendent of Survey and Land Records
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Tahsildar
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Village Officer
- Relation
- Represented by
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 5589/1993, Land Tax Receipt, Location Plan Certificate, True copy of Possession Certificate, True copy of Complaint, True copy of Order bearing No. S1/7181/19, Certified copy of Commission Report in O.S No. 784/2021.
Defendants Documents
True copy of Sketch issued by Village Officer, Edappally North, True copy of Page No. 71 of Basic Tax Register submitted by Village Officer, Edappally North.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- A. Balagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- A. Rajagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- R. Rajesh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M.N Manmadan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sojo J Kallidukkil
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Johans Jacob P
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Karthika S. Varma
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Bincy Thomas
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Suni M. D
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Law Firm
- Addl. Govt. Pleader
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent any interference with his possession.
Evidence:
In view of answer to issue number III, it is clear that the plaintiff is not entitled to a relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for.
Relief Type:
Boundary Refixing
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff requested to refix the boundaries of the plaint schedule property as per title deeds.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is not entitled to a decree refixing the boundaries of the plaint schedule property as per his title deeds.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Plaintiff used this document to establish ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document used to show payment of land tax for the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Location Plan Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provided to indicate the location of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Possession Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Used to demonstrate the plaintiff's possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Complaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Complaint regarding illegal resurvey submitted by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Correspondence with authorities related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Order
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document showing the order issued in response to the complaint.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Appeal
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document showing the appeal filed against the dismissal of the earlier complaint.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Correspondence related to the appeal proceedings.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type:
Letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further correspondence from the plaintiff related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Legal notice sent to the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A11
Document Type:
Postal Acknowledgment Card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Acknowledgment of receipt of legal documents.
Reference:
Ext.A12
Document Type:
Postal Acknowledgment Card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Acknowledgment of receipt of legal documents.
Reference:
Ext.A13
Document Type:
Postal Acknowledgment Card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Acknowledgment of receipt of legal documents.
Reference:
Ext.A14
Document Type:
Postal Acknowledgment Card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Acknowledgment of receipt of legal documents.
Reference:
Ext.A15
Document Type:
Reply letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Response from authorities concerning the property.
Reference:
Ext.A17
Document Type:
Letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further correspondence related to the complaint.
Reference:
Ext.A18
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Report detailing findings from the prior suit regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.A19
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Document used by the defendants to support their resurvey findings.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Basic Tax Register
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Used to demonstrate tax records relevant to the property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Court's report concerning the property boundaries and investigation.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Surveyor's Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Sketch produced by the surveyor detailing the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1(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 David Pul vs State of Kerala et al regarding re-fixing of boundary of property and permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between David Pul vs State of Kerala et al regarding re-fixing of boundary of property and permanent prohibitory injunction