Case Summary
The plaintiffs, including Dr. Boney Pilo and others, seek a declaration regarding the mutation of property that should belong to them. They have filed suit against the State of Kerala and others, asserting that the property was wrongfully mutated in the name of the fourth defendant, Kuruvila Mathai.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Partial
Relief Granted
Defendants no.1 to 3 are directed to cancel the mutation effected in the name of the 4th defendant with respect of the plaint schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ordered the cancellation of the mutation of the plaint schedule property made in the name of the 4th defendant. The plaintiffs were granted partial relief.
Key Reasoning:
The mutation was found to be executed without rightful title in the name of the 4th defendant, and hence should be cancelled.
The mutation was found to be executed without rightful title in the name of the 4th defendant, and hence should be cancelled.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The mutation was found to be executed without rightful title in the name of the 4th defendant, and hence should be cancelled.
The mutation was found to be executed without rightful title in the name of the 4th defendant, and hence should be cancelled.
Supporting Evidence
A person can transfer only what he has. As there was no property left available for him to execute a deed, Exhibit A21/B1 is void ab initio.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed in part, as follows; The defendants no.1 to 3 are directed to cancel the mutation effected in the name of the 4th defendant with respect of the plaint schedule property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Dr. Boney Pilo
- Party Age
- 76
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Commander Rajiv Pailo
- Party Age
- 73
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mrs. Susan Cherian
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mrs. Sheela Pailo
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Miss Shwetha Rebecca Pailo
- Party Age
- 27
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- State of Kerala
- Relation
- represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Tahsildar (Land Records) Mini Station
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Village Officer, Kumarakom Village
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kuruvila Mathai
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of partition deed No. 1897/1962, Copy of Tax receipt, Copy of Thandapper Register No. PV 115/2010.
Defendants Documents
Copy of Settlement Deed No. 1525/2009, Tax Receipt.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P.V. Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P. Vinodji
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Georgekutty C.A.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs sought to cancel the mutation of the property effected in the name of the 4th defendant.
Evidence:
The defendants no.1 to 3 are directed to cancel the mutation effected in the name of the 4th defendant with respect of the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Not Decided
Description:
Plaintiffs sought to restrain the 4th defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
Not applicable as the court did not grant this relief.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document establishes the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Lawyers notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The notice was issued to inform the defendants regarding the mutation issue of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The receipt serves as evidence of the plaintiffs' claim of ownership and possession over the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document was disputed by the plaintiffs, indicating the 4th defendant's claim over the property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The receipt is related to the property in question and is used by defendants to assert their claim.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
The court considered the oral testimony of witnesses as part of the evidence presented.
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between Dr. Boney Pilo et al vs State of Kerala et al regarding declaration and injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Dr. Boney Pilo et al vs State of Kerala et al regarding declaration and injunction.