Case Summary
Peettollathil Sumesh, the plaintiff, is seeking recovery of possession of property from the defendants, Peettollathil Babu and Peettollathil Sunila. The case involves disputes over property rights and claims of adverse possession.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession based on the failure to identify the plaint schedule property. The defendants successfully proved their claim of adverse possession.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to establish that the plaint schedule property was identifiable and did not prove that he was out of possession.
The plaintiff failed to establish that the plaint schedule property was identifiable and did not prove that he was out of possession.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff failed to establish that the plaint schedule property was identifiable and did not prove that he was out of possession.
The plaintiff failed to establish that the plaint schedule property was identifiable and did not prove that he was out of possession.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has not established the fact that he is out of possession of the plaint schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Peettollathil Sumesh
- Party Age
- 35
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Peettollathil Babu
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Peettollathil Sunila
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Partition Deed No. 1983/2005, Janmam Assignment Deed No. 79/2013, Janmam Assignment Deed No. 707/2017, Basic Tax Receipts.
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of Judgment in OS 98/18, Certified copy of Deposition of PW1 in OS 98/2018.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. N. M. Kuttikrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. M. Siju
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought recovery of possession of the plaint scheduled property.
Evidence:
In such a situation a relief of recovery of possession based on the strength of the title cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiff.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the plaintiff's title over the property following a registered partition.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Janmam Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document confirms the transfer of rights from Vimala to the plaintiff regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Janmam Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document evidences the plaintiff's ownership of the property as per the assignment from Vimala.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Basic Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
These receipts demonstrate that the plaintiff has been paying taxes for the property.
Reference:
Exts.A4 to A11
Document Type:
Deposition
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document contains the deposition relevant to the case in OS 98/2018.
Reference:
Ext.A12
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Judgment
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This judgment pertains to a previous case relating to the same parties, providing context about ongoing disputes.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Certified copy of deposition
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document contains a deposition relevant to the previous case OS 98/2018.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Peettollathil Sumesh vs Peettollathil Babu et al regarding Recovery of possession.
Case Code Year
Case between Peettollathil Sumesh vs Peettollathil Babu et al regarding Recovery of possession.