Case Summary
Case involves plaintiffs claiming ownership of property bought from defendants 1 to 3. Dispute arose due to trespassing and boundary issues. Plaintiffs seek to fix boundary and seek injunction against defendants.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit for fixation of boundary was dismissed.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to properly identify the plaint schedule property.
The plaintiffs failed to properly identify the plaint schedule property.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs failed to properly identify the plaint schedule property.
The plaintiffs failed to properly identify the plaint schedule property.
Supporting Evidence
Judgment Evidence:
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Newja N. Joy
- Party Age
- 24
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Lincy Joy
- Party Age
- 47
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Paul
- Relation
- Others
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mrs. Lilly
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mr. Rex
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mr. Rince
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mr. V.V Thankachan
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Power of Attorney, Sale Deeds, Survey Sketch, Land Tax Receipts
Defendants Documents
Land Tax Receipts, Voters list, Commission Reports
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Manu Roy
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- A. Balagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- A. Rajagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- M.N Manmadan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- R. Rajesh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Ruby V.J
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sophiya P.R
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Subitha K.K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Fixation of Boundary
Outcome:
Not Decided
Description:
Plaintiffs sought relief to fix the boundary of the plaint schedule property
Evidence:
No clear decision on boundary fixation due to property identification issues
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Plaintiffs obtained plaint schedule property from defendants 1 to 3
Reference:
1837/2013
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Plaintiffs obtained plaint schedule property from defendants 1 to 3
Reference:
1838/2013
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Plaintiffs obtained plaint schedule property from defendants 1 to 3
Reference:
1839/2013
Document Type:
Notarised copy of Survey Sketch
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Submitted as proof of property identification, but found to be inconclusive
Reference:
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Identified as a document mistakenly sealed and signed in place of another report
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Submitted as evidence by the defendants
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Newja N. Joy et al vs Mrs. Lilly et al regarding fixation of boundary, injunction and consequential reliefs
Case Code Year
Case between Newja N. Joy et al vs Mrs. Lilly et al regarding fixation of boundary, injunction and consequential reliefs