Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 1 005/2016

Case between Padmadas vs Mani et al regarding fixation of boundary, recovery of possession and permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K.Dinamany
Order Date
2025-09-27
Duration
approximately-9 years 2 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves a dispute between the plaintiff, Padmadas, and the defendants, who are neighboring property owners, regarding the alleged encroachment of a pathway. The plaintiff claims exclusive ownership of the pathway, while the defendants assert that it is a public passage maintained by the Panchayat.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, citing insufficient evidence to prove ownership or exclusive use of the disputed pathway, which was determined to be a public passage.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff was unable to prove ownership and exclusive use of the disputed pathway.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is dismissed with costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Padmadas (44 years) Thereviparambil House, Kadamakudy P O, Pizhala, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam

Defendants

Mani (50 years) Devaswamparambil House, Kadamakudy P O, Pizhala, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam Symala (50 years) Devaswamparambil House, Kadamakudy P O, Pizhala, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam Vijayan (55 years) Devaswamparambil House, Kadamakudy P O, Pizhala, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam Hema (Age not specified years) Devaswam Parambil House, Kadamakudy P O, Pizhala, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam, Pin 682 027 Hena (Age not specified years) Devaswam Parambil House, Kadamakudy P O, Pizhala, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam, Pin 682 027

Reliefs

Relief Type: Boundary Fixation
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought fixation of the boundary of the B schedule property.
Evidence:
Therefore, court is satisfied that the plaintiff is not in ownership of plaint B schedule property.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff requested a permanent injunction against the defendants from trespassing.
Evidence:
The relief for fixation of the eastern boundary of plaint B schedule property and the recovery of possession of the B1 and B2 from the defendants cannot be allowed.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff claimed for recovery of possession of the encroached portion by the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as sought for.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Document
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Title deed of property obtained by the plaintiff indicating ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Document
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Title deed obtained by the plaintiff that supports his claim of ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt indicating plaintiff's possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Document
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Original document supporting 1st defendant's claim of ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Document
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Original document supporting 2nd defendant's claim of ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Certificate
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Death certificate of Sathrugnan for establishing relationship to defend premises.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Certificate
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Relationship certificate of Sathrugnan to validate relationship claim.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Tax receipt from Kadamakudi Village indicating ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report pertaining to the property for investigation.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch provided in relation to the commissioner's report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Detailed sketch for understanding the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1(b)

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Wed, 07/20/2016 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases