Case Summary
The plaintiff, M.K.Lawrence, filed a suit against Gopalakrishnan and others seeking a declaration that a prior judgment was collusive and void, along with an injunction against them from interfering with his property. The plaintiff asserts ownership of the property based on a sale deed.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from committing any act of waste in the plaint schedule property and from alienating it.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established that the previous decree was obtained fraudulently.
The plaintiff established that the previous decree was obtained fraudulently.
Judgment Evidence:
The Judgment and Decree in OS.No.1772/1997 is hereby declared to be null and void and not executable as against the plaint schedule property and the document executed as Doc. No. 3917/2001 of Ernakulam S.R.O based on the decree is also hereby declared to be null and void.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
M.K.Lawrence (54 years years)
Marottikkal house, Ganesh Kala Mandir road, Vaduthala – 682 023, Ernakulam
Defendants
Gopalakrishnan (65 years years)
LIG 645, Panampilly nagar, Kochi – 682 036, Elamkulam village, Kanayannur taluk, Ernakulam
Babu (52 years years)
Sree Mathi Vihar, C/o Kallai Balan, P.O Beypore, Kozhikode – 673 015
Pillai K.K Rajeswari (60 years years)
Falt no. 1A, INFRA HAMLIN, Bhavans Vidya Mandir road, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi – 682 020
Vishnu (Age not specified years)
Vivek (Age not specified years)
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Declaring that the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.1772/1997 is collusive, null and void.
Evidence:
Thus, what follows from the above discussions is that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing with preponderance of probabilities that the 1st and 2nd defendant has colluded to obtain a decree in OS.1772/1997.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Restraining the defendants from committing any act of waste in the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
Any act of waste committed in the plaint schedule property would cause serious prejudice to the plaintiff who is the rightful owner of the property.
Relief Type:
Cost
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Granting costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is entitled for costs of the suit.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as evidence that the plaintiff purchased the property from the second defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows payment of the tax fee for mutation in the name of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document confirms the payment of property tax for the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows payment of property tax for the year 1998-1999.
Reference:
Ext.A3(a)
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows payment of property tax for the year 2015-2016.
Reference:
Ext.A3(b)
Document Type:
Possession Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document certifies the plaintiff's possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Application
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is an application submitted by the plaintiff regarding property tax.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document evidences the transaction of the property from the second defendant to the first defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Agreement for sale
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document is an agreement for sale linked to the case.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Judgment
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document contains the judgment passed in the previous case that is central to the current dispute.
Reference:
Ext.B1