Case Summary
The plaintiff, Jinu C Thomas, seeks a declaration of his right to lateral support from the defendant's property to prevent damage to his house and well. The defendant, John Mathai, allegedly began construction that threatens this support.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Declaration of easement by prescription for lateral support and a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting a declaration of easement by prescription for lateral support and ordering a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant from removing soil without maintaining sufficient space.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff proved the necessity for lateral support based on historical use and expert testimony.
The plaintiff proved the necessity for lateral support based on historical use and expert testimony.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The commission report and the village officer's report support the plaintiff's claim that there is a threat to the house and property if the soil from item No.2 is removed indiscriminately. The plaintiff's concern is reasonable, as the defendant himself admitted to planning to remove soil from the 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 from 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:
The plaintiff has the right of easement by prescription for the lateral support of item No.1 from item No.2.
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:
The defendant is restrained from removing soil from item No.2 without leaving the required 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:
The plaintiff is entitled to costs from the defendant.
Evidence:
Hence, issue No.3 is also found in favour of the plaintiff.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The Settlement Deed establishes the plaintiff's ownership of item No.1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Copy of letter to RDO, Meenachil
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This letter details the plaintiff's complaint to the RDO about soil removal.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Report from Village Officer, Kidangoor
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The report supports the plaintiff's claim that soil removal will cause damage.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This deed provides evidence of the historical occupancy and use of item No.1.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Land Revenue Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This receipt demonstrates ongoing ownership and tax payments for item No.1.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Letter to SHO Kidangoor Police Station
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This letter details the plaintiff's attempts to prevent soil removal by alerting police.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Acknowledgement Receipt of petition
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This serves as proof of the petition filed with the police.
Reference:
Ext.A6(a)
Document Type:
Receipt of Petition
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This receipt confirms the filing of a petition with the District Police Office.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Letter from Kidangoor Grama Panchayath
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This letter is part of the evidence supporting the plaintiff's claims.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Common Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report provides findings relevant to the case as presented in court.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This sketch illustrates the layout of the properties involved in the dispute.
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
Right of way obstruction
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.