Case Summary
Leji Kuriakose and Saramma filed a case against Benny and Elikutty regarding a dispute over property boundaries and access rights. The plaintiffs sought injunctions to prevent the defendants from trespassing and damaging their property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Mandatory injunction to restore the boundary wall and prohibitory injunction against trespassing.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs successfully established their case with sufficient evidence.
The plaintiffs successfully established their case with sufficient evidence.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: (1) The defendants are hereby directed, by way of mandatory injunction, to restore the boundary wall demolished on the northern boundary of the plaint schedule item No. 1 property on its original alignment within one month from today.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Leji Kuriakose (37 years years)
Karipra House, Pralayakkadu Kara, Vengoor West Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk
Saramma (72 years years)
Karipra House, Pralayakkadu Kara, Vengoor West Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk
Defendants
Benny (45 years years)
Karipra House, Pralayakkadu Kara, Vengoor West Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk
Elikutty @ Aliyamma (75 years years)
Karipra House, Pralayakkadu Kara, Vengoor West Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendants are directed to restore the boundary wall demolished on the plaintiffs' property.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendants are restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties and from demolishing the boundaries.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiffs are entitled to realise the costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are entitled to realise the costs of the suit from the defendants.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The power of attorney was presented as evidence for representing the plaintiffs in court.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the ownership of the plaint schedule properties.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The receipt demonstrates that land tax for the properties has been duly paid.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Location Sketch
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The sketch provides a true representation of the geographical boundaries of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The plan indicates the layout and boundaries of the survey No.198.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Resurvey Area Register
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is relevant for confirming the resurvey details of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The deed confirms the partition of property and establishes the rights of the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This deed provides evidence of previous sale transactions relevant to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This deed is part of the documentation supporting the property ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This additional deed further substantiates the plaintiffs' claims to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type:
Commissioner Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
These reports and plans were used by the court to assess the property boundaries and the demolished wall's position.
Reference:
Ext.C1 series, C2 series, C3 series