Case Summary
Lalu Thomas is the plaintiff who seeks to fix the southern boundary of his property and obtain a permanent injunction against V.C. Yohannan, the defendant, who has allegedly attempted to encroach on the plaintiff's property. The case involves claims of property destruction by the defendant.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into plaint schedule item no.1 property and from destroying or demolishing the southern boundary kayyala.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, fixing the southern boundary of the property and granting an injunction against the defendant.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaint averments, affidavit and the documents support the plaintiff's case.
The plaint averments, affidavit and the documents support the plaintiff's case.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaint averments, affidavit and the documents support the plaintiff's case.
The plaint averments, affidavit and the documents support the plaintiff's case.
Supporting Evidence
The plaint averments, affidavit and the documents would establish the case of the plaintiff. There is no evidence to rebut the evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as claimed for.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1) The southern boundary of the plaint schedule item no.1 is fixed through line ‘ JPK ’ as shown in Exhibit A4 plan. 2) The defendant and people under him are hereby restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into plaint schedule item no.1 property, from destroying or demolishing the southern boundary kayyala, from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of plaint schedule item no.1 property and from committing any acts of waste therein.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Lalu Thomas
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- V.C. Yohannan
- Party Age
- 87
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Power of Attorney, Photocopy of the Will, Basic Tax receipt, Survey plan in OS 481/2010, Certified copy of judgement in OS 481/10, Certified copy of decree in OS 481/10.
Defendants Documents
Nil
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Adv. Manish Jose
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The southern boundary of the plaint schedule item no.1 is fixed through line 'JPK' as shown in Exhibit A4 plan.
Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1) The southern boundary of the plaint schedule item no.1 is fixed through line 'JPK' as shown in Exhibit A4 plan.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendant and people under him are restrained from trespassing into plaint schedule item no.1 property and from committing any acts of waste there.
Evidence:
2) The defendant and people under him are hereby restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into plaint schedule item no.1 property, from destroying or demolishing the southern boundary kayyala, from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of plaint schedule item no.1 property and from committing any acts of waste therein.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the authority of Benny K Paulose to represent the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Photocopy of the Will
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is relevant for supporting the plaintiff's claim of ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Basic Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is used to substantiate the plaintiff's ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Survey plan in OS 481/2010
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is critical for determining the southern boundary of the plaintiff's property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Certified copy of judgement in OS 481/10
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides the history of the case and is important for the current judgment.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Certified copy of decree in OS 481/10
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document lays out the agreed terms regarding property boundaries, important for the case.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Certified copy of commission report in O.S. 481/2010
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This document provides established findings relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This document provides investigation findings related to the dispute.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This document aids in visualizing the property in question relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Boundary Dispute
Case Code
Case between Lalu Thomas vs V.C. Yohannan regarding fixation of boundary and injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Lalu Thomas vs V.C. Yohannan regarding fixation of boundary and injunction