Case Summary
The case involves a dispute between Gracy George, the plaintiff, and B.J.Vijayan, the 2nd defendant, regarding the trespass and construction activities on a disputed property. The 2nd defendant claims exclusive possession of the property, while the plaintiff alleges encroachment and seeks to establish boundaries.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
The plaintiff is restrained from cutting and removing the teak trees situated on the boundary line separating the plaint A and B schedule properties, and from making any constructions in the A schedule property until the disposal of the suit.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the interim application, restraining the plaintiff from cutting and removing teak trees and from carrying out any construction activities in the disputed property until the final resolution of the suit.
Key Reasoning:
The court concluded that allowing construction might cause irreparable loss and hardship to both parties due to the lack of a definite boundary demarcation.
The court concluded that allowing construction might cause irreparable loss and hardship to both parties due to the lack of a definite boundary demarcation.
Why Defendant Won:
The court concluded that allowing construction might cause irreparable loss and hardship to both parties due to the lack of a definite boundary demarcation.
The court concluded that allowing construction might cause irreparable loss and hardship to both parties due to the lack of a definite boundary demarcation.
Supporting Evidence
Hence, based on the above stated facts it is concluded that the IA is liable to be allowed and I ordered accordingly.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, IA allowed. The plaintiff/respondent is restrained from cutting and removing the teak trees situated on the boundary line separating the plaint A and B schedule properties, and from making any constructions in the A schedule property until the disposal of the suit.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Gracy George
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- B.J.Vijayan
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Tomy Yesudas
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Francis Jude Netto
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
To restrain the respondent/plaintiff from cutting or removing teak trees and from carrying out any construction activities within the property at a distance less than 6 metres from the existing boundary line.
Evidence:
Hence, based on the above stated facts it is concluded that the IA is liable to be allowed and I ordered accordingly.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Marked as evidence for the measurement and boundary determination related to the properties in dispute.
Reference:
Ext.C1 series and C2 series
Document Type:
Mahazar
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Submitted by the advocate commissioners, providing details of the property measurements.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a) and C2(a)
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Prepared by the First Grade Surveyor, showing the layout of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(b)
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Provided by the advocate commissioner to illustrate construction activities.
Reference:
Ext.C2(b)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.
Case Code Year
2023