Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Machincheri Thoombil Kunhipathumma and her son Abdul Majeed, are involved in a boundary dispute with the defendant, Visarath Koya. The case seeks to fix and establish the northern, southern, and western boundaries of the plaint A schedule property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs proved their title and possession over the plaint A schedule property while the defendant failed to substantiate his claims.
The plaintiffs proved their title and possession over the plaint A schedule property while the defendant failed to substantiate his claims.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1. The boundaries of the plaint A schedule property are fixed as follows: (a). The southern boundary of the A schedule property is fixed as 'Q-R-M' line in Ext. C4 plan, (b). The northern boundary of the plaint A schedule property is fixed as 'B-C-D' line in Ext. C4 plan, (c). The western boundary of the plaint A schedule property is fixed as 'B-Q' line in Ext. C4 plan.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Machincheri Thoombil Kunhipathumma (63 years years)
Keraladheeswarapuram amsom desom & Post.
Abdul Majeed (43 years years)
Keraladheeswarapuram amsom desom & Post.
Defendants
Visarath Koya (60 years years)
Keraladheeswarapuram amsom desom, Tirur Taluk.
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendant is restrained from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendant is restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property and from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the plaint A schedule property.
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The boundaries of the plaint A schedule property are fixed.
Evidence:
The boundaries of the plaint A schedule property are fixed follows: (a). The southern boundary of the A schedule property is fixed as 'Q-R-M' line in Ext. C4 plan, (b). The northern boundary of the plaint A schedule property is fixed as 'B-C-D' line In Ext. C4 plan, (c). The western boundary of the plaint A schedule property is fixed as 'B-Q' line in Ext. C4 plan.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Janmam Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves the plaintiff's title and possession over the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Mumbattam Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Relates to the property held by the defendant on the southern boundary of the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt supports the plaintiff's claim of possession over plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3(a)
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt supports the plaintiff's claim of possession over plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3(b)
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt supports the plaintiff's claim of possession over plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3(c)
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt supports the plaintiff's claim of possession over plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3(d)
Document Type:
Written Statement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Documents related to the previous suit O.S. 313/2011 which establishes the context of the current dispute.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Plaint
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Related to the previous suit O.S. 313/2011 providing context to the current boundary dispute.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Commissioner's findings relevant to the boundary dispute between the plaintiff and defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Commission sketch
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Visual representation related to the commission report concerning the properties.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Judgment
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Previous judgment providing context to the dispute and claims of the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Decree
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Previous decree related to the judgment which influences the current case.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Reported findings relevant to the boundary dispute that helped in the judgment.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner aiding in the boundary determination.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Further commission report supporting the court's findings on the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type:
Commission Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Plan detailing the boundaries in relation to the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C4