Case Summary
The case involves a dispute over lateral support for the plaintiff's property from the defendant's property. The plaintiff claims that the defendant's actions may lead to damage to his property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Right of easement by prescription for lateral support and permanent prohibitory injunction against soil removal.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting him the right of easement by prescription for lateral support from the defendant's property and issued an injunction against the defendant.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff successfully established the need for lateral support under Section 7 of the Indian Easements Act.
The plaintiff successfully established the need for lateral support under Section 7 of the Indian Easements Act.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff successfully established the need for lateral support under Section 7 of the Indian Easements Act.
The plaintiff successfully established the need for lateral support under Section 7 of the Indian Easements Act.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff's main argument is that the ‘thondu’ was destroyed to enable vehicles to load sand from the property. After considering both sides, I believe that the item No.1 property needs lateral support from the item No.2 property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1) It is declared that the plaintiff has the right of easement by prescription for the lateral support of the plaint schedule No.1 property from the plaint schedule item No.2 property. 2) The defendant and men under him are restrained from removing soil from the plaint schedule item No.2 property without leaving at least two meters from the northern boundary of item No.1 property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Jinu C Thomas
- Party Age
- 35
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- John Mathai
- Party Age
- 75
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Settlement Deed No.16/1/2019, Report from Village Officer, Kidangoor, Sale Deed No. 1983.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Mathewkutty Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- N. T Babu
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Awarding the plaintiff lateral support from item No. 2 property.
Evidence:
It is declared that the plaintiff has the right of easement by prescription for the lateral support of the plaint schedule No.1 property from the plaint schedule item No.2 property.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Restraining the defendant from removing soil from item No. 2 property without leaving sufficient space.
Evidence:
The defendant and men under him are restrained from removing soil from the plaint schedule item No.2 property without leaving at least two meters from the northern boundary of item No.1 property.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff's entitlement to receive costs.
Evidence:
Hence, issue No.3 is also found in favour of the plaintiff.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves ownership of the plaint item No.1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Copy of letter to RDO, Meenachil
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Contains the plaintiff's complaint to the RDO regarding soil removal.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Report from Village Officer, Kidangoor
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Details site inspection and risks of soil removal from item No.2.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes historical ownership and condition of plaint schedule No.1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Land Revenue Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves payment of taxes related to the plaint schedule No.1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Letter to SHO Kidangoor Police Station
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document concerning police intervention regarding attempted soil removal.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Acknowledgement Receipt of petition
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirms the filing of a petition with the police.
Reference:
Ext.A6(a)
Document Type:
Receipt of petition from District Police Office, Kottayam
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Validates the submission of a petition regarding the case.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Letter from Kidangoor Grama Panchayath
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Correspondence from the local governance regarding the case.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Common Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Filed by court-appointed commissioner after inspection.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Visual representation of the disputed properties during inspection.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Pala
Common Reasons
Lateral support easement
Case Code
Case between Jinu C Thomas vs John Mathai regarding declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Jinu C Thomas vs John Mathai regarding declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction