Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Karthikeyan and Suresh, are seeking recovery of possession of land from the defendants, P.G.Raveendran and others. The dispute involves encroachment and ownership rights over a specific portion of land.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Recovery of possession of plot B in Ext.C1(a) plan, permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants obstructing possession.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court partially decreed the suit, granting the plaintiff recovery of possession for a specified area of land and a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found that the plaintiff's evidence sufficiently established entitlement to the property in question.
The court found that the plaintiff's evidence sufficiently established entitlement to the property in question.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found that the plaintiff's evidence sufficiently established entitlement to the property in question.
The court found that the plaintiff's evidence sufficiently established entitlement to the property in question.
Supporting Evidence
The court proved to the satisfaction that an extent of 0.26 Ares of property belonging to the plaintiff has been encroached by the defendant and is currently in their possession.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed in part as follows, 1) Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of plot B in Ext.C1(a) plan. Defendants are directed to surrender vacant possession of plot B within one month from the date of decree failing which plaintiff can secure the same through court.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Karthikeyan
- Party Age
- 68
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Suresh
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- P.G.Raveendran
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kairali
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sindhu
- Party Age
- 34
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Girish
- Party Age
- 32
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ratheesh
- Party Age
- 30
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of judgment in O.S.1665/92, Certified copy of the decree in O.S.1665/92, Partition deed No. 2533/1962, Certified copy of the Commission Report and plan.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Varghese C Kuriakose
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Basil Thomas
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Biju George
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Rajeev Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P.G.Raveendran
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of plot B in Ext.C1(a) plan.
Evidence:
In light of the discussions above, the issues are found partly in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the extent of 0.26 Ares of property shown in blue shade in Ext.C1(a) sketch as ‘B’.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from obstructing the peaceful possession of the extent of 0.26 ares of property.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is also found entitled for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the peaceful possession of the extent of 0.26 ares of property.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff is entitled to realize the cost of the suit.
Evidence:
I find no reason to deviate from the normal rule that costs shall follow the event. Hence, plaintiff is found to be entitled for costs of the suit.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Judgment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document presents the judgment in a previous related case (O.S.1665/92), which is relevant for the current dispute regarding possession.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Certified copy of the decree
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document is the decree related to the previous case that supports the plaintiff's claims.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the plaintiff's ownership and boundary of the disputed land.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Certified copy of the Commission Report and plan
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This report and plan detail the findings of the advocate commissioner that are crucial for the case.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The report provides details about the measurement of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This sketch visually represents the property involved and its boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Karthikeyan et al vs P.G.Raveendran et al regarding recovery of possession and consequential injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Karthikeyan et al vs P.G.Raveendran et al regarding recovery of possession and consequential injunction