Case Summary
The case involves Manoj Kumar.T.M. as the plaintiff against the Corporation of Kochi, its Secretary, and Antony.A.V. The plaintiff is seeking the fixation of boundaries and recovery of possession of certain property, which he claims has been encroached upon by the defendants.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Recovery of possession of the encroached property and permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The unchallenged oral and documentary evidence were sufficient to grant a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
The unchallenged oral and documentary evidence were sufficient to grant a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms. 1) The eastern boundary of the plaint schedule property is fixed as the line separating the yellow shaded portion in Ext.C1(a) with the red shaded portion. 2) The yellow shaded portion marked as B in Ext. C1(a) is a part of plaint schedule property and plaintiff is entitled for recovery of same from defendants.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Manoj Kumar.T.M. (40 years)
Thittayil House, Vidya Nagar Cross Road, Elamkulam Village, Ernakulam District, Cochin – 682 020
Defendants
Corporation of Kochi (Age not specified years)
Office of the Corporation of Kochi, Cochin, Pin – 682 018
The Secretary, Corporation of Kochi (Age not specified years)
Office of the Corporation of Kochi, Cochin, Pin – 682 018
Antony.A.V. (34 years)
Anamthuruthil House, Chilavannur Road, Elamkulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff seeks recovery of the portion of plaint schedule property illegally tarred.
Evidence:
Accordingly, I find that plot B in Ext.C1(a) forming part of plaint schedule property has been encroached by 1st and 2nd defendants.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff seeks a permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants from causing obstruction in constructing a compound wall.
Evidence:
Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from causing any obstruction to plaintiff in constructing compound wall or fixing gate along the boundary.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff seeks mandatory injunction to restore the portion of plaint schedule property illegally tarred.
Evidence:
Though plaintiff has sought for mandatory injunction the same is not necessitated as the relief of recovery of possession is granted.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext.A1 is a settlement deed which establishes the original ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext.A2 is a certificate issued by the Indian Overseas Bank which pertains to the financial status relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Suit Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext.A3 is a copy of the suit notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendants prior to the institution of the suit.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Ext.C1 is a commission report that provides important evidence regarding the boundaries of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Ext.C1(a) is a sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor that visually represents the boundaries of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)