Case Summary
K P Babu filed a suit against Geetha @ Seetha and others regarding a right of way over a pathway. The plaintiff claims he has been obstructed from using this pathway by the defendants, who are the legal heirs of the property owner Pradeep.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendants restrained from obstructing the plaintiff from using the pathway; mandatory injunction to remove obstruction.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found in favor of K P Babu, stating he has the right of way over the pathway in question. The defendants were ordered to remove their obstruction and were restrained from annexing the path.
Why Plaintiff Won:
Plaintiff proved ownership and right of way by virtue of the agreement with Pradeep.
Plaintiff proved ownership and right of way by virtue of the agreement with Pradeep.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Plaintiff proved ownership and right of way by virtue of the agreement with Pradeep.
Plaintiff proved ownership and right of way by virtue of the agreement with Pradeep.
Supporting Evidence
The unchallenged oral and documentary evidence is sufficient to grant a decree in favour of plaintiff. Plaintiff has proved that by virtue of Ext.A6, he has got right of passage through item No.2 pathway.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms: 1) The defendants are restrained by way of perpetual injunction from annexing any portion of plaint item No. 2 way to their properties or from obstructing the plaintiff from using plaint item no 2 way peaceably. 2) The defendants are directed to remove plaint item no 3 construction by way of mandatory injunction within 3 months...
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- K P Babu
- Party Age
- 61
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Geetha @ Seetha
- Party Age
- 36
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sarojini
- Party Age
- 71
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Anitha
- Party Age
- 35
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Sale deed No. 5284/93, Sale deed No. 3611/1999, Agreement granting right of way executed in favour of the plaintiff.
Defendants Documents
Tax paid receipt issued from Thrikkakkara North Village Office.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K Shaji
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Anju Mohan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Ijlal C
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Arun Chand
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Thareeq Anver
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Renjith R
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- B M Ajith
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are restrained from annexing any portion of plaint item No. 2 way to their properties or from obstructing the plaintiff from using it.
Evidence:
The defendants are restrained by way of perpetual injunction from annexing any portion of plaint item No. 2 way to their properties or from obstructing the plaintiff from using plaint item no 2 way peaceably.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are directed to remove the construction obstructing the pathway.
Evidence:
The defendants are directed to remove plaint item no 3 construction by way of mandatory injunction within 3 months.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are directed to pay the costs of the suit to plaintiffs.
Evidence:
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, plaintiffs are entitled to get the costs of the proceedings.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document evidencing the plaintiff's ownership of plaint Item No. 1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document evidencing the plaintiff's ownership of plaint Item No. 1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Agreement granting right of way over plaint Item No. 2 pathway to the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipts evidencing payment related to plaint Item No. 1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipts evidencing payment related to plaint Item No. 1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Tax receipts presented by the defendants to establish their claim over the property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Tax receipts presented by the defendants to establish their claim over the property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Tax receipts presented by the defendants to establish their claim over the property.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Document used by defendants to claim ownership over the property.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Notice related to the financial aspect of the property dispute.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Report detailing the status of plaint Item No. 2 pathway.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Sketch corroborating the Commission Report regarding plaint Item No. 2 pathway.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Oral evidence
Relevance:
Testimonies from the plaintiff's and defendant's witnesses presenting their claims.
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between K P Babu vs Geetha @ Seetha et al regarding injunction
Case Code Year
Case between K P Babu vs Geetha @ Seetha et al regarding injunction