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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 50/2015

Case between George vs Aliyamma, Biju Paulose et al regarding fixation of boundary and perpetual injunction

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, PERUMBAVOOR
Judge
Smt. Alshari A.
Order Date
2025-01-24
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

George is the plaintiff seeking to fix the boundary of his property against the defendants Aliyamma, Biju Paulose, and others. The defendants are claiming that their property overlaps with the plaint schedule property and are obstructing the plaintiff's request to demarcate the boundaries.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit filed by George was dismissed because the plaintiff did not prove the necessity for fixing the boundary as claimed. The existing physical boundary was deemed sufficient, and no actionable claim for perpetual injunction was established by the plaintiff.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The defendants successfully demonstrated that the physical boundary already existed and that there was no obstruction to the property.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit stands dismissed. No costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

George (45 years) Kaniyadan House, Pralayikkad Kara, Vengoor West Village, Kunnathunad Taluk

Defendants

Aliyamma (75 years) Kaniyadan House, Pralayikkad Kara, Vengoor West Village, Kunnathunad Taluk Biju Paulose (40 years) Kaniyadan House, Pralayikkad Kara, Vengoor West Village, Kunnathunad Taluk K.M. Joy (59 years) Kaniyadan House, Thuruthy Kara, Pralayakkad, Vengoor West Village Chinnamma George (Age not specified years) Kaniyadan House, Karayamparambu, Angamaly Village Anoop George (36 years) Kaniyadan House, Karayamparambu, Angamaly Village

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from entering the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
In the absence of allegation of any overt act, to be attempted by defendants, there is no ground for the apprehension of the plaintiff in seeking for a perpetual injunction.
Relief Type: Fixation of Boundary
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought to fix the boundary between the plaint schedule property and the adjoining property.
Evidence:
Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I could not find the plaintiff to be entitled for the relief of fixation of boundary.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides the basis for the plaintiff's claim regarding the boundary and possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is related to the plaintiff's ownership and claim over the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This report assesses the physical boundaries of the properties in question.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission report and Survey plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This document provides insights into the survey of the property and its boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C2

Quick Facts

Location
Case Filed
Thu, 01/01/2015 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases