Case Summary
The plaintiffs, N.A.George and Sreedharan Kunjukunju, are seeking a declaration of their right to a public road and an injunction against the defendants, T.C. Ipe, Vineeth Ipe, and Ammukutty Korulla, who have allegedly obstructed access to the road. The case revolves around property and road ownership disputes.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendants directed to remove the granite kayyala within 3 months.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court partially decreed the suit, declaring the plaintiffs' right to the B schedule road as a public road and ordered the removal of a granite structure obstructing the road by the defendants.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court established that the plaintiffs have a legitimate right to access the public road, supported by documentation and testimony.
The court established that the plaintiffs have a legitimate right to access the public road, supported by documentation and testimony.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court established that the plaintiffs have a legitimate right to access the public road, supported by documentation and testimony.
The court established that the plaintiffs have a legitimate right to access the public road, supported by documentation and testimony.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs provided evidence that the B schedule road, being a public road, was obstructed by the defendants, warranting legal intervention.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, The suit is decreed in part, as follows; 1) It is hereby declared that the plaintiffs have right over the plaint B schedule road, being a public road. 2) The defendants are hereby directed to remove the plaint D schedule granite kayyala, within a period of 3 (three) months from today.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- N.A.George
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sreedharan Kunjukunju
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- T.C. Ipe
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vineeth Ipe
- Party Age
- 33
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ammukutty Korulla
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Sale deed No.179/94, Tax receipt dated 10.01.2014.
Defendants Documents
Copy of Will No.28/1987, Tax receipt.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.Karjet
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Georgekutty C.A.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Declaration of right over plaint B schedule road, being a public road.
Evidence:
It is hereby declared that the plaintiffs have right over the plaint B schedule road, being a public road.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Directing the defendants to remove the plaint D schedule granite kayyala.
Evidence:
The defendants are hereby directed to remove the plaint D schedule granite kayyala, within a period of 3 (three) months from today.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Restraining the defendants from closing or obstructing the plaint B schedule road.
Evidence:
The defendants and their men are hereby restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from making any construction closing or obstructing the plaint B schedule road.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Dismissed
Description:
Counterclaim by the defendants.
Evidence:
The Counterclaim is dismissed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A1 is the sale deed no.179/1994 whereby the plaintiff obtained plaint A schedule property having an extent of 17.80 Ares.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Re-survey Plan
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A2 is the survey plan of Field No.318, showing that plaint B schedule property is lying as a road.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Decree
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A3 is a compromise decree passed in OS 567/11 where the plaint B schedule property is admitted as a public road.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A4, dated 10.01.2014, shows that the plaintiff was paying tax for plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Basic Tax Register
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A9 notes that the property comprised in Resurvey no.318/10 is lying as a road.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type:
Will
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B1 is a copy of Will No.28/1987.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B2, dated 30.07.2024, is a tax receipt.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
FIR
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B3 is a copy of FIR dated 23.06.2014.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Exhibit C1 series are reports prepared by the Advocate Commissioner regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Exhibit C2 series includes a report prepared by the Advocate Commissioner who visited the property.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between N.A.George et al vs T.C. Ipe et al regarding declaration and injunction
Case Code Year
Case between N.A.George et al vs T.C. Ipe et al regarding declaration and injunction
Case Flags
Adalath Resolved