Case Summary
This case involves a dispute over the use of a pathway adjacent to the plaintiffs' property. The plaintiffs claim the right to a pathway for ingress and egress, while the defendants contend there is no such pathway as described.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found that the plaintiffs were unable to prove their case regarding the right to the pathway they claimed. Therefore, the suit was dismissed without costs.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs could not produce sufficient evidence to support their claim of a pathway.
The plaintiffs could not produce sufficient evidence to support their claim of a pathway.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs could not produce sufficient evidence to support their claim of a pathway.
The plaintiffs could not produce sufficient evidence to support their claim of a pathway.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs could not produce the original of the document (partition deed) on the basis of which they are claiming a right of pathway.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Jayadevi
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Greeshma
- Party Age
- 34
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Ginish
- Party Age
- 32
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Surendran
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Chandran Nair
- Party Age
- 64
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kanakamma
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Radha
- Party Age
- 59
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Photocopy of document no 1705 of SRO Tripunithura, Photograph
Defendants Documents
Photocopy of Partition deed no. 3440/1995 SRO Tripunithura, Location Sketch
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Krishnadas P Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.L.Sreekala
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Haridas P Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M.A.Vinod
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- V.K.Kishore
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Devi P Prathapan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- N.M.Madhu Devika Rani Kaimal
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to restrain them from obstructing the pathway.
Evidence:
Hence, issue No.1 is found against the plaintiff.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is referred to as the basis for the plaintiffs' claim over the A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Photograph
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This photograph is mentioned as supporting evidence for the claim.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document is referenced by the defendants to contest the claims of the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Location Sketch
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This sketch was produced by the defendants to show the layout and access to the properties, contradicting the plaintiffs' claims.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Injunction and Access Rights
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Jayadevi et al vs Surendran et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Jayadevi et al vs Surendran et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction