Case Summary
Mary @ Mary Xavier and Augustine V. X. are the plaintiffs seeking partition and a permanent injunction against Joseph. V. X. and others. The case centers around property inherited from their late father, Xavier, with disputes over ownership and rights.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The Court found insufficient proof regarding the existence of the plaint C schedule property.
The Court found insufficient proof regarding the existence of the plaint C schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed. The first defendant is entitled to the costs of the suit from the plaintiffs.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Mary @ Mary Xavier (83 years years)
Vavakkattu House, Nettoor South, Nettoor. P. O., Maradu Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, Pin – 682 040.
Augustine V. X. (56 years years)
Vavakkattu House, Nettoor South, Nettoor P. O., Maradu Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, Pin – 682 040.
Defendants
Joseph. V. X. (59 years years)
Vavakkattu House, Nettoor South, Nettoor P. O., Maradu Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, Pin – 682 040.
Anna Cleetus (61 years years)
Kunnalakkattu House, Nettoor P. O., Ernakulam District, Pin – 682 040.
Mercy (48 years years)
Chooramana House, Thykkattussery P. O., Pin – 682 858.
Thankachan (58 years years)
Alathara House, Ezhupunna Thekkum Muri, Kodamthuruth Village, Cherthala Taluk, Pin – 688 533.
Midhu Thankachan (26 years years)
Alathara House, Ezhupunna Thekkum Muri, Kodamthuruth Village, Cherthala Taluk, Pin – 688 533.
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a decree for partitioning the plaint C schedule property.
Evidence:
The plaint C schedule property is not partible as its existence could not be proved before the court.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
A permanent prohibitory injunction was sought to restrain the 1st defendant from covering the well and making constructions on plaint C schedule property.
Evidence:
An injunction could not be granted without proper proof that the well is located within the property of the plaintiffs.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The court considered this document to determine property settlement related to the first defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Relinquishment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was referenced to establish the relinquishment of rights by the other defendants in favor of the second plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The court referred to this receipt in discussions related to property ownership and tax responsibilities.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report was considered by the court during the examination of property claims made by the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.C1