O.S. 332/2017

Case between Johnson Joseph vs Raveendran @ Kunjumon et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court

THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KANJIRAPPALLY

Judge

Smt. Smitha Susan Mathew

Order Date

2025-03-28

Duration

approximately-7 years 5 months

Case Code No.

332

Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Johnson Joseph is the plaintiff seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against Raveendran @ Kunjumon and others for trespassing and constructing a road through his property. The defendants counterclaimed for a declaration of right of way and related injunctions.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won

Interim Order

The court granted a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants restraining them from trespassing and using the plaintiff's property for pedestrian purposes.

Judgment Favored

Plaintiff

Relief Granted

Permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.

Case Type

Civil Suit

Final Judgment

The court granted a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants restraining them from trespassing and using the plaintiff's property for pedestrian purposes.

Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs proved ownership and exclusive rights over the property in question.

Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available

Supporting Evidence

The plaintiffs have title over the Idathondu except the portion of the Idathondu which is formed from the part of defendants property.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, counterclaim in O.S 332/2017 and O.S 17/2018 are dismissed and the suits are decreed as follows: Defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing on plaint schedule item No.3 in O.S 332/2017 and plaint schedule item No.2 in O.S 17/2018.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Johnson Joseph
Party Age: 54
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: V.D. Sudhakaran
Party Age: 65
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Raveendran @ Kunjumon
Party Age: 55
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Ruby Raveendran
Party Age: 50
Relation: W/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Mukesh Raveendran
Party Age: 25
Relation: S/o

Plaintiffs Documents

Certified copy of sale deed No.4108/1981, Certified copy of sale deed No.1396/2011, Land tax receipts.

Defendants Documents

Certified copy of sale deed No.2844/2001, Land tax receipt.

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Adv. Alex J. Edackattu
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Adv. T.K. Soman
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Adv. K.S. Sajikumar
Appearance Type: Assisting Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Adv. Girish S. Nair
Appearance Type: Assisting Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Adv. Babu M.T.
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction

Outcome: Granted

Description:

Defendants are restrained from trespassing on plaint schedule item No.3 in O.S 332/2017 and plaint schedule item No.2 in O.S 17/2018.

Evidence:

Defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing on plaint schedule item No.3 in O.S 332/2017 and plaint schedule item No.2 in O.S 17/2018, constructing new road through it, using it for pedestrian purposes, destructing the usufructs and committing wastes therein.

Relief Type: Other

Outcome: Granted

Description:

Plaintiffs are entitled to get the cost of the suit from defendants.

Evidence:

Plaintiffs are entitled to get the cost of the suit from defendants and their assets.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Certified copy of sale deed No.4108/1981 of Kanjirappally S.R.O., establishes ownership of plaint schedule item No.1.

Reference:

Ext.A1

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Certified copy of sale deed No.1396/2011 of Kanjirappally S.R.O., establishes ownership of plaint schedule item No.2.

Reference:

Ext.A2

Document Type: Land Tax Receipt

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Land tax receipt No.4313031 of Edakunnam Village, verifies ownership claim.

Reference:

Ext.A3

Document Type: Land Tax Receipt

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Land tax receipt No.4313128 of Edakunnam Village, verifies ownership claim.

Reference:

Ext.A4

Document Type: Settlement Deed

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Certified copy of settlement deed No.464/2023 of Koovappally S.R.O., establishes family share.

Reference:

Ext.A5

Document Type: Land Tax Receipt

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Land tax receipt No.KL05020301920/2024 of Edakkunnam Village, verifies ownership claim.

Reference:

Ext.A6

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Certified copy of sale deed No.5611/2006 of Kanjirappally S.R.O., relates to the property of plaintiff 2.

Reference:

Ext.A7

Document Type: Land Tax Receipt

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Land tax receipt No.KL05020304847/2024 of Edakunnam Village, verifies ownership claim.

Reference:

Ext.A8

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

Certified copy of sale deed No.2844/2001 of Kanjirappally S.R.O., establishes counterclaim ownership.

Reference:

Ext.B1

Document Type: Land Tax Receipt

Submitted By: Defendant

Relevance:

Land tax receipt No.KL05020306139/2024 of Edakunnam Village, supports counterclaim ownership.

Reference:

Ext.B2

Document Type: Commission Report

Submitted By: Court

Relevance:

Commission report filed by Advocate Commissioner Bilu G in O.S.332/17, provides evidence on property condition.

Reference:

Ext.C1

Document Type: Sketch

Submitted By: Court

Relevance:

Rough sketch submitted along with commission report, aids in understanding property layout.

Reference:

Ext.C1(a)

Document Type: Commission Report

Submitted By: Court

Relevance:

Commission report filed by Advocate Commissioner Jose Syriac, presents findings relevant to the case.

Reference:

Ext.C2

Document Type: Survey Plan

Submitted By: Court

Relevance:

Survey plan submitted along with commission report, clarifies property boundaries.

Reference:

Ext.C2(a)

Document Type: Commission Report

Submitted By: Court

Relevance:

Commission report filed by Advocate Commissioner Bilu G in O.S.17/2018, contributes to property assessment.

Reference:

Ext.C3

Document Type: Sketch

Submitted By: Court

Relevance:

Rough sketch submitted along with commission report in O.S.17/2018, assists in visualization.

Reference:

Ext.C3(a)

Document Type: Commission Report

Submitted By: Court

Relevance:

Commission report filed by Advocate Commissioner Bilu G in O.S.332/17, offers further insights into property conditions.

Reference:

Ext.C4

Document Type: Sketch

Submitted By: Court

Relevance:

Rough sketch submitted along with commission report, provides an additional aid to understanding property layout.

Reference:

Ext.C4(a)

Document Type: Oral Evidence

Submitted By: Unknown

Relevance:

Testimony of witnesses regarding property disputes.

Reference:

Case Classification

Case Type

Civil Suit

Case between Johnson Joseph vs Raveendran @ Kunjumon et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Judgement document from eCourt website

Case Summary

Judgment Outcome

Judgment Evidence:

Parties Involved

Parties

Advocates

Reliefs

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Quick Facts

Involved Entities

Similar Cases