Case Summary
The plaintiffs, consisting of brothers and their families, are claiming ownership and possession of a parcel of land from the defendants, who are attempting to trespass and widen an existing pathway. The court evaluated ownership and evidence presented by the plaintiffs.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
1. Plaintiffs have title and possession over the plaint schedule property. 2. Plaintiffs are entitled to put up boundary through the line AD. 3. Defendants are permanently restrained from trespassing upon any portion of the plaint schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, affirming their ownership over the plaint schedule property and restraining the defendants from trespassing.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs proved their ownership and possession as supported by documents and testimony.
The plaintiffs proved their ownership and possession as supported by documents and testimony.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs proved their ownership and possession as supported by documents and testimony.
The plaintiffs proved their ownership and possession as supported by documents and testimony.
Supporting Evidence
Herein this case plaintiffs case stands proved and unchallenged by the pleadings and evidences. There is no contra evidence to prove otherwise.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed with costs as follows: i. It is declared that the plaintiffs have title and possession over the plaint schedule property. ii. The plaintiffs are entitled to put up boundary through the line AD, ie on the plaint schedule property. iii. The defendants are permanently restrained from trespassing upon any portion of the plaint schedule property and committing any waste therein.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Natarajan
- Party Age
- 56
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Muraleedharan
- Party Age
- 47
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Thankamony
- Party Age
- 59
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Anil
- Party Age
- 39
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Anitha Mani
- Party Age
- 36
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sathyan
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Omanakuttan
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ponnamma
- Party Age
- 65
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Udyakumar
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Sale Deed No. 2685/1117 of Kundara SRO, Gift Deed No. 1585/1119 of Kundara SRO, Relinquishment Deed No. 1043/1963, Tax Receipt
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.Dharmarajan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- J. Leelavathi Amma
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Declaration that the plaintiffs have title and possession over the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
It is declared that the plaintiffs have title and possession over the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are permanently restrained from trespassing upon any portion of the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendants are permanently restrained from trespassing upon any portion of the plaint schedule property and committing any waste therein.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs are entitled to put up boundary through the line AD on the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are entitled to put up boundary through the line AD, ie on the plaint schedule property.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Gift Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates the transfer of property rights to the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Relinquishment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demonstrates the relinquishment of rights to support the plaintiffs' ownership claim.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Substantiates the plaint claim regarding ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked as subject to proof for establishing property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Identifies the plaint schedule property and supports the plaintiffs' claims.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Mahazar
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Prepared to document the conditions at the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Part of the decree for property boundary delineation.
Reference:
Ext.C1(b)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Natarajan et al vs Sathyan et al regarding Declaration, Fixation of Boundary and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Natarajan et al vs Sathyan et al regarding Declaration, Fixation of Boundary and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction