Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Marry George and Thressiamma Xaviour, filed a suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, Thankappan and Johan, regarding the use of property for vehicular access. The plaintiffs claimed the defendants were obstructing their use of the property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from violating the agreement dated 20.09.2008.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs and issued a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs' use of the property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs proved their ownership and the defendants violated the terms of the agreement regarding property use.
The plaintiffs proved their ownership and the defendants violated the terms of the agreement regarding property use.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs proved their ownership and the defendants violated the terms of the agreement regarding property use.
The plaintiffs proved their ownership and the defendants violated the terms of the agreement regarding property use.
Supporting Evidence
Since the defendants have admitted Ext.A2 there is nothing to disbelieve the version of PW1 regarding the validity of Ext.A2. Therefore it can be rightly held that Ext.A1 is a valid agreement. The plaintiffs’ definite case was that the defendants who were having only right of enjoyment of the plaint schedule property was causing obstruction in it thereby restraining the plaintiff from enjoying and using the same.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result suit is decreed with costs as follows: a.Defendants and men under them or their agents are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from doing any act in violation of the terms of agreement dated 20.09.2008 and also from planting anything in plaint schedule property or in its parts, in such a way to create any obstruction to the free vehicular movement through it.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Marry George
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- W/o Late George
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Thressiamma Xaviour
- Party Age
- 39
- Relation
- W/o Jaison George
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Thankappan
- Party Age
- 81
- Relation
- S/o Kunjappan
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Johan
- Party Age
- 52
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Sale Deed No.1469/2003, Agreements, Receipt issued from SHO Velloor Police Station, Certified copy of Sale deed No.763/15 issued from SRO Thalayolaparambu, Power of attorney executed by Jaison George in favour of Mary George.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Adv.M.M.Vinod
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Adv.Haritha Unni
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Adv. V.N.Madhusudanan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Adv. K.Krishnakumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Adv.Malu Johnson
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Adv.Sangeetha Thankachan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from violating the agreement.
Evidence:
In the result suit is decreed with costs as follows: a.Defendants and men under them or their agents are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from doing any act in violation of the terms of agreement dated 20.09.2008...
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs sought recovery of costs from the defendants.
Evidence:
b.The plaintiffs are entitled to get costs from the defendants.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No.1469/2003 issued from SRO Thalayolaparambu, establishing plaintiffs' ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Agreements
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Agreement dated 20.09.2008 that details permission granted to defendants for vehicular use of plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Receipt issued from SHO Velloor Police Station relevant to the complaint filed by the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No.763/15 issued from SRO Thalayolaparambu, related to the partition of property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Power of attorney executed by Jaison George in favour of Mary George, which supports plaintiffs' claim.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report filed by Adv. Chaithanya K.S, providing findings relevant to the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch filed by the commissioner Adv. Chaithanya K.S to illustrate the property layout.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Vaikom
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Marry George et al vs Thankappan et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Marry George et al vs Thankappan et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.