Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Lilly Alexander and her children, are seeking to fix the boundary of their property and to prevent the defendant, Thankachan, from obstructing their use of the land. They have presented evidence regarding their ownership and claims to the land against the defendant's assertions.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit as it found that they could not clearly identify the property in question, thus denying their claims for boundary fixation and injunction.
Key Reasoning:
The court found that the plaintiffs were unable to prove their ownership and the boundary identification of the property.
The court found that the plaintiffs were unable to prove their ownership and the boundary identification of the property.
Why Defendant Won:
The court found that the plaintiffs were unable to prove their ownership and the boundary identification of the property.
The court found that the plaintiffs were unable to prove their ownership and the boundary identification of the property.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence indicated that the plaintiffs failed to clearly establish their ownership and identity of the plaint schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs to the suit.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Lilly Alexander
- Party Age
- 71
- Relation
- W/o late K J Alexander
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Rex Alex K
- Party Age
- 37
- Relation
- S/o late K J Alexander
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Rince Alex K
- Party Age
- 36
- Relation
- S/o late K J Alexander
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Thankachan
- Party Age
- 59
- Relation
- S/o late Virunnan
Plaintiffs Documents
Sale Deed bearing No: 983/1969, Release Deed bearing No: 4012/1988, Certificate issued by Land Tribunal, Land Tax receipt issued by Kadamakkudy Village Office.
Defendants Documents
Fair Area list issued by Central Survey Office, Correlation Statement of Village Survey field.
Advocates
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a decree for a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent the defendants from obstructing construction.
Evidence:
Hence those reliefs cannot be granted.
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs requested recovery of possession of the plaint A schedule property.
Evidence:
In the absence of a clearly defined or described plaint A Schedule, a relief of recovery of possession or mandatory injunction as prayed for also cannot be granted.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs aimed for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove encroachments.
Evidence:
Hence these reliefs as sought for cannot be granted.
Relief Type:
Fixation of Boundary
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs requested a decree for fixation of boundary according to their claims.
Evidence:
Hence those reliefs cannot be granted.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows the sale of property which is central to the ownership claims of the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Release deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document indicates the release of undivided share and title over the property to the plaintiffs' predecessor.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Certificate issued by Land Tribunal
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This certificate supports the plaintiffs' claim of ownership over the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This receipt serves as evidence of tax payment related to the property claimed by the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This receipt is another piece of evidence supporting the plaintiffs' ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Written Statement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was filed by the first defendant and contains information relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Correlation Statement of Village Survey field
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This statement is part of the evidence presented by the defendants during the trial.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Fair Area list
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This list provides information related to the survey field and was used in supporting the defendant's case.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Correlation Statement of Village Survey field
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This statement is associated with the defendants' evidence regarding land boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
R.T.I report
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This report is a subject to proof document that pertains to the survey office information.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type:
Certified Copy of IA
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document relates to orders in the current case and is subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.B8
Document Type:
Certified copy of Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This is another document subject to proof that is relevant to the defendants' claims.
Reference:
Ext.B9
Document Type:
Field Register
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This field register is pertinent to the survey details and is subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.B10
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This sketch is part of the evidence related to the survey and property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.B11
Document Type:
Page of Field Register
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This page is another subject to proof document that pertains to the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.B12
Document Type:
True copy of Voters list
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document is subject to proof and may relate to the defendants' identification in the locality.
Reference:
Ext.B13
Document Type:
Copy of Sketch
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This is a sketch supporting the facts presented by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B14
Document Type:
Location Plan Certificate
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This certificate provides location details relevant to the property.
Reference:
Ext.B15
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document pertains to past transactions relevant to the property.
Reference:
Ext.B16
Document Type:
Photocopy of Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This is a subject to proof document relevant to the defendants' claims.
Reference:
Ext.B17
Document Type:
Certified copy of objection
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This objection document is subject to proof and relevant to the ongoing litigation.
Reference:
Ext.B18
Document Type:
True copy of field Register
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document is relevant to property verification and is subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.B19
Document Type:
Certified Copy of IA
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document relates to interim applications and is subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.B20
Document Type:
Page of Field Register
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This page pertains to the field survey details relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.B21
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This court document provided evidence regarding the property boundaries through measurement.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This plan is part of the evidence submitted during the proceedings regarding property demarcation.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report includes details from a survey conducted to clarify property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This plan is part of the evidence submitted in relation to the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Document Type:
Photographs
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
These photographs are evidentiary materials submitted to support the visual aspect of the case.
Reference:
Ext.C2(b) to C2(b)(8)9
Document Type:
CD
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This CD contains visual evidence pertinent to the issues being adjudicated.
Reference:
Ext.C2(c)
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This document provided further measurements and evidence related to the property claim disputes.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Various oral testimonies were presented by both sides, influencing the court's decision.
Reference:
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 Lilly Alexander et al vs Thankachan regarding fixation of boundary and injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Lilly Alexander et al vs Thankachan regarding fixation of boundary and injunction.