Case Summary
Nandakumar A.P. filed a suit against the State of Kerala and others seeking mandatory and perpetual injunction to remove encroachments on a public way that he claims is essential for accessing his property. The defendants include government officials and a private individual who allegedly encroached on the way.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Partial
Relief Granted
The 4th defendant is restrained from obstructing the usage of the plaint B schedule way by the plaintiff or his family members.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court partially decreed the suit, restraining the 4th defendant from encroaching and obstructing the public way leading to the plaintiff's property. The suit regarding mandatory injunction against the government was dismissed.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff provided sufficient evidence establishing a public right to use the way, which was impeded by the 4th defendant's encroachment.
The plaintiff provided sufficient evidence establishing a public right to use the way, which was impeded by the 4th defendant's encroachment.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff provided sufficient evidence establishing a public right to use the way, which was impeded by the 4th defendant's encroachment.
The plaintiff provided sufficient evidence establishing a public right to use the way, which was impeded by the 4th defendant's encroachment.
Supporting Evidence
There is no bar to seek for any relief against the 4th defendant. It is not in doubt that, the plaintiff has the right to use the plaint B schedule item No. 3 way being a member of public and his public right cannot be infringed by the 4th defendant.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed in part as follows: The 4th defendant is hereby restrained from making any pits in the plaint B schedule way item No.3 as shown in Ext.C2 & C2(a) or close the way or destroy the way or obstruct the usage of the same by the plaintiff or his family members by way of a perpetual injunction.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nandakumar A.P.
- Party Age
- 44
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- State of Kerala
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Tahasildar, Kunnathunadu Taluk Office
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rayamangalam Grama Panchayath
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Xavier
- Party Age
- 56
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of the will deed No.86/111/2000, Copy of the order from RDO Muvattupuzha, Copy of the order from Taluk Office, Office copy of the lawyer notice, Postal receipts, Acknowledgment cards
Defendants Documents
True copy of the extract of BTR, True copy of the FMB of the Sy.No.233, True copy of the extract of puramboke register, Attested copy of the Form – A relating to survey No.233/14, Attested copy of the Form – A relating to survey No.233/23, Attested copy of the Form – C relating to survey No.233/14
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P. T. Geevarghese
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- M. G. Sreekumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P. G. Dileepkumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Court
- Advocate Name
- M. A. Bejoykumar
- Appearance Type
- Government Pleader
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The 4th defendant is restrained from making pits in the plaint B schedule way item No.3.
Evidence:
The 4th defendant is hereby restrained from making any pits in the plaint B schedule way item No.3 as shown in Ext.C2 & C2(a) or close the way or destroy the way or obstruct the usage of the same by the plaintiff or his family members by way of a perpetual injunction.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove encroachments.
Evidence:
The prayer seeking for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants No. 1 to 3 to get the encroachment removed as prayed for is barred by the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act and a suit will not lie for the eviction of the person, who is in unauthorized occupation of the puramboke.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Will Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The Will deed bearing No. 86/2000 bequeaths property in favor of the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the letter No.A5-6895/2013 of RDO, Muvattupuzha.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Order
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the order No.C2-11417/2013 of Taluk Office, Kunnathunadu.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Legal Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Office copy of the lawyer notice issued by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Postal Receipts
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Postal receipts related to the legal notice.
Reference:
Ext.A5, A5(a) & A5(b) (Series)
Document Type:
Acknowledgment Cards
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Acknowledgment cards related to the legal notice.
Reference:
Ext.A6, A6(a) & A6(b) (Series)
Document Type:
BTR Extract
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
True copy of the extract of BTR submitted to the court.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
FMB Copy
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
True copy of the FMB of the Sy.No.233 submitted to the court.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Puramboke Register Extract
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
True copy of the extract of puramboke register submitted to the court.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Attested Copy
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Attested copy of the Form – A relating to survey No.233/14.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Attested Copy
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Attested copy of the Form – A relating to survey No.233/23.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Attested Copy
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Attested copy of the Form – C relating to survey No.233/14 submitted to the court.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Attested Copy
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Attested copy of the Form – B relating to the property comprised in Sy. No.233/14.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type:
Order
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Attested copy of the order of Tahsildar bearing No. LC.01/2017.
Reference:
Ext.B8
Document Type:
Order
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Attested copy of the order of Tahsildar in LC.1/2017.
Reference:
Ext.B9
Document Type:
Order
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Attested copy of the order of Tahsildar in LC.1/2017.
Reference:
Ext.B10
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report and Rough sketch submitted by Adv. M.A. Bejoykumar.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Supplementary commission report submitted by Adv. M.A. Bejoykumar.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report and Survey plan submitted by Adv. M.A. Bejoykumar.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Supplementary survey plan submitted by Adv. M.A. Bejoykumar.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Document Type:
Land Assignment File
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
The file relating to the land assigned of the property comprised in resurvey No.233/23.
Reference:
Ext.X1 (series)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between Nandakumar A.P. vs State of Kerala et al regarding mandatory and perpetual injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Nandakumar A.P. vs State of Kerala et al regarding mandatory and perpetual injunction