Case Summary
The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants regarding the possession of specified property. The plaintiffs claim ownership and have been in possession of the property for years, while the defendants dispute this ownership.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court granted the permanent prohibitory injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of the property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs proved their ownership and possession of the property in question.
The plaintiffs proved their ownership and possession of the property in question.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs proved their ownership and possession of the property in question.
The plaintiffs proved their ownership and possession of the property in question.
Supporting Evidence
The court is satisfied that plaintiff has proved his possession on the date of institution of suit.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms. Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into plaint A schedule property from cutting and removing the rubber trees in the same or any part thereof or from committing any waste therein and from interfering with plaintiffs exclusive possession and peaceful enjoyment of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Pathrose
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- P P Georgekutty
- Party Age
- 61
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- P P Mathukutty
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Saju Peter
- Party Age
- 56
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ithappiri
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Varghese
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Molly Varghese
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sheba
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sheeba
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Sale deed No. 1107/1111 of SRO, Aikkaranad, partition deed no. 1029/1957 of SRO, Edappally, basic tax receipt issued from Thrikkakara Village Office
Defendants Documents
Copy of partition deed of SRO, Puthencurz, tax receipts issued from Thrikkakara Village Office
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- V J Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- G Rajagopal
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- S Leelalakshmi
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- N Renjinee Devi
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- C K Aravindaksha Menon
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K C Charles
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P Chellappan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Vimal K Charles
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Renju A T
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The court issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing and cutting trees on the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into plaint A schedule property from cutting and removing the rubber trees in the same or any part thereof or from committing any waste therein and from interfering with plaintiffs exclusive possession and peaceful enjoyment of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendants are ordered to pay the cost of the suit to the plaintiffs.
Evidence:
Defendants are directed to pay the cost of the suit to plaintiffs.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The court used this document to establish the plaintiff's ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was referenced to support the plaintiff's claim regarding the division of property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
These receipts were used to verify the plaintiff's payment of tax related to the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3 to A3(e)
Document Type:
Rubber Board Registration
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document confirmed the plaintiff's registration of rubber plantation on the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This deed was cited to establish the partitioning of the property in favor of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Will
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was noted as part of the plaintiff's evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The court referenced this document to understand the history of ownership claims regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court relied on this report to clarify the boundaries and extent of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Pathrose et al vs Ithappiri et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Pathrose et al vs Ithappiri et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction