Case Summary
Jose Mathew is the plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale concerning a property allegedly owned by Muhammed Rawther and others. The case revolves around allegations that the defendants have attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession of the property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Addl. 10th defendant is directed to execute sale deed in favor of plaintiff with respect to 2.02 ares of property; permanent prohibitory injunction granted.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, directing the additional 10th defendant to execute a sale deed in favor of the plaintiff. It also granted a permanent prohibitory injunction against the additional 10th defendant and restrained all defendants from interfering with the plaint schedule property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found the agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant to be genuine and acknowledged the plaintiff's possession of the property.
The court found the agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant to be genuine and acknowledged the plaintiff's possession of the property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found the agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant to be genuine and acknowledged the plaintiff's possession of the property.
The court found the agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant to be genuine and acknowledged the plaintiff's possession of the property.
Supporting Evidence
Evidence shows that Ext.A1 was executed by the 1st defendant with intention to sell 5 cents of property to plaintiff. The plaintiff showed readiness and willingness to get the property executed in his favour.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows; 1. Addl. 10th defendant is directed to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff with respect to 2.02 ares of property... 3. The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing on plaint schedule item No.3 property...
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Jose Mathew
- Party Age
- 47
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Muhammed Rawther
- Party Age
- 80
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Gopinathan
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ponnamma Gopinathan
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mini
- Party Age
- 46
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Harija
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
09.03.2002 Agreement executed by E. Muhammed Rawther in favour of Jose Mathew.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Soni Thomas
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- George Kurian
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- T.S Rajeswaran
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P.A. Muhammed Shameer
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Specific Performance
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Directive for the additional 10th defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
Evidence:
Addl. 10th defendant is directed to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff with respect to 2.02 ares of property comprised in resurvey No.86/4 ...
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Injunction against the additional defendant from alienating the plaint schedule item No.3 property.
Evidence:
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is granted restraining the addl. defendant No.10 from executing any document alienating plaint schedule item No.3 property except for the plaintiff.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Injunction against the defendants from trespassing on the plaint schedule item No.3 property.
Evidence:
The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing on plaint schedule item No.3 property...
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the plaintiff's claim to specific performance of the agreement to sell 5 cents of property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Mahazar
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Prepared by Commissioner to provide evidence regarding the property in dispute.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Visual representation accompanying the Mahazar prepared by Commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report prepared by Commissioner to provide further evidence.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Plan related to the property in survey No. 86/4 part block No. 10.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Document Type:
Mahazar
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Further evidence prepared by the Commissioner related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Additional visual evidence prepared by the Commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C3(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kanjirappally
Common Reasons
Specific performance of agreement
Case Code
O.S
Case Code Year
2006