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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O. S. No.317/2017

Case between Febin K Varghese, et al vs Kuruvila, et al regarding declaration of easementary right of way and injunctions

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, PERUMBAVOOR
Judge
Smt. Sumey Chandran
Order Date
2025-11-07
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Febin K Varghese and Kuruvila, et al are in dispute over an easementary right of way and obstruction of a wall in Airapuram Kara, Airapuram Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk.

Judgment Outcome

Partial Relief
Interim Order
The suit is dismissed without costs as the plaintiff failed to establish an easementary right or interference by the defendants.
Judgment Favored
Unknown
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:

Judgment Evidence:

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Febin K Varghese (33 years) Kakkattil House, Airapuram Kara, Airapuram Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk Varghese (71 years) S/o Kuriakose, Kakkattil House, Airapuram Kara, Airapuram Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk Others (Age not specified years)

Defendants

Kuruvila (75 years) Kakkattil House, Airapuram Kara, Airapuram Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk Kuriakose (58 years) Edakkaravayalil House, Airapuram Kara, Airapuram Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk Addl. Beena (40 years) Poovathinkal House, D3 Vengola Kara, Vengola Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk Addl. Annakutty (68 years) W/o. Kuruvila, Kakkattil House, D4 Airapuram Kara, Airapuram Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk Others (Age not specified years)

Reliefs

Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Declaration of easementary right of way
Evidence:
The plaintiff has not established any legally recognisable easementary right
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Seeking injunctions to prevent obstruction
Evidence:
The plaintiff is not entitled to the mandatory injunction
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Seeking mandatory injunction to secure removal of wall
Evidence:
The plaintiff is not entitled to the mandatory injunction

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Submitted to establish title and possession over property
Reference:
A1
Document Type: Certified Copy of Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Submitted to establish joint use of pathway
Reference:
A2
Document Type: Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Submitted to establish ownership of adjacent property
Reference:
A3
Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Not mentioned
Reference:
A4
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Submitted as evidence
Reference:
A5
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Submitted as visual evidence
Reference:
Document Type: Commission report and Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Report submitted by Advocate Commissioner
Reference:
C1

Quick Facts

Location
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
50%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases