Case Summary
Lohidakshan is the plaintiff seeking a boundary fixation and injunction against his brother Velappan and his family. The case involves allegations of attempted encroachment on the plaintiff's property and a counterclaim by the defendants for a permanent prohibitory injunction.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint C schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting a fixation of boundaries for the plaint C schedule property and a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants regarding the property. The counterclaim by the defendants was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The evidence of the plaintiff was found to be credible and unchallenged.
The evidence of the plaintiff was found to be credible and unchallenged.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The evidence of the plaintiff was found to be credible and unchallenged.
The evidence of the plaintiff was found to be credible and unchallenged.
Supporting Evidence
There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence tendered by PW1. The evidence of PW1 remains unchallenged.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed and the counterclaim is dismissed as follows: i. The counterclaim is dismissed. ii. The boundary of the plaint C schedule property on the southern side meeting the northern boundary of the first defendant's property is fixed as noted in the Exhibit C1(a) sketch.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Lohidakshan
- Party Age
- 43
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Velappan
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Karthika
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vipin
- Party Age
- 22
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Kudikidappu Certificate, Original Will bearing No. 188/2006, Death Certificate issued by Kumbalam Grama Panchayath
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.C Eldho
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Jijo Thomas
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Mallenathan M
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Suraj S
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Charles Karl
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Anesh Paul
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Aneesh James
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Anil R. Nath
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Rathi K.A
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Neya James
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- A. Balagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- A. Rajagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P. A Martin Roy
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- R. Rajesh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is passed restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint C schedule property.
Evidence:
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction is passed restraining the defendants, their men or agents, or anybody claiming under them or in trust for them from trespassing into the plaint C schedule property or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint C schedule property by the plaintiff or meddling with the construction of the common wall/fencing.
Relief Type:
Fixation of Boundary
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The boundary of the plaint C schedule property on the southern side meeting the northern boundary of the first defendant's property is fixed.
Evidence:
The boundary of the plaint C schedule property on the southern side meeting the northern boundary of the first defendant's property is fixed as noted in the Exhibit C1(a) sketch.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of suit from the defendants.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Kudikidappu Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is relevant as it supports the plaintiff's claim of ownership and residential rights.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Original Will bearing No. 188/2006
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This Will is critical in establishing the bequeathing of property to the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, forming the basis of the dispute.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Death Certificate issued by Kumbalam Grama Panchayath
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document confirms the death of the plaintiff's father, an essential fact in the case.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The commission report aids in identifying the boundaries of the plaint C schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Survey Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The survey sketch visualizes the property boundaries relevant to the dispute.
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
Boundary Dispute
Case Code
Case between Lohidakshan vs Velappan et al regarding fixation of boundary and injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Lohidakshan vs Velappan et al regarding fixation of boundary and injunction