Case Summary
Leelamma Joseph is the plaintiff seeking to fix boundaries and prevent the defendants from trespassing on her property. The defendants, led by Roy, are challenging her claims regarding property boundaries and access.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing on the plaint schedule item No.1 property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, allowing her to establish the boundary and preventing the defendants from trespassing on her property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The evidence presented by the plaintiff was deemed credible and sufficient to establish her rights over the property in question.
The evidence presented by the plaintiff was deemed credible and sufficient to establish her rights over the property in question.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The evidence presented by the plaintiff was deemed credible and sufficient to establish her rights over the property in question.
The evidence presented by the plaintiff was deemed credible and sufficient to establish her rights over the property in question.
Supporting Evidence
The unrebutted evidence of PW1 and the contentions raised by defendants in their written statement would show that defendants are trespassing on plaint schedule item No.1 property...
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows; 1 The plaintiff is permitted to put up boundary through ‘GZHKL’ line...
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Leelamma Joseph
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Roy
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Asha
- Party Age
- 47
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Benny @ Mathai
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Josekutty
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ancy @ Annamma
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Sale deed No.728/2010, Sale deed No.729/2010, Sale deed No.2573/2014, Tax receipt, Certified copy of resurvey plan.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Bilu G.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Girish S. Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K.S. Sajikumar
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Prohibitory injunction against the defendants from trespassing on the plaint schedule item No.1 property.
Evidence:
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is granted restraining the defendants from trespassing on the plaint schedule item No.1 property.
Relief Type:
Boundary Fixation
Outcome:
Partly Granted
Description:
Fixation of the boundary between the plaintiff's and defendants' properties.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is permitted to put up boundary through ‘GZHKL’ line as shown in Ext.C2(a) plan, wherever the kayyala is demolished, through the process of the court.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original sale deed establishing plaintiff's title to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Prior deed connected to the plaintiff's claim over the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further establishing the plaintiff's chain of title to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt verifying the plaintiff's occupation and ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Certified copy of Resurvey Plan
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provides a detailed layout and boundaries of the plaintiff's property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Mahazar
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Document evidencing the observations made by the commissioner regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Sketch prepared to illustrate the boundaries and pertinent features of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commissioner's report detailing the property assessment.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Survey plan that delineates specific boundaries and areas of the discussed properties.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kanjirappally
Common Reasons
Boundary Dispute
Case Code
O.S.
Case Code Year
2019