Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S No. 1273/2017

Case between Purushan alias Purushothaman et al vs M.K.Pavithran regarding decree of declaration and recovery of possession

Court
The Court of the I Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam
Judge
Sri. Padmakumar.G.
Order Date
2024-02-03
Duration
approximately-6 years 3 months
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs are claiming ownership and possession of a property that they allege was fraudulently transferred to the defendant. The defendant, on the other hand, claims that he lawfully purchased the property from the plaintiff.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court found that the sale deed in favor of the defendant was fraudulent and declared it void. Plaintiffs were granted recovery of possession of the property.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Decree of declaration and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found that the sale deed in favor of the defendant was fraudulent and declared it void. Plaintiffs were granted recovery of possession of the property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs successfully proved the existence of fraudulent actions surrounding the defendant's claim to the property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs successfully proved the existence of fraudulent actions surrounding the defendant's claim to the property.
Supporting Evidence
The sale deed was executed under fraudulent circumstances, and the required legal formalities were not followed, validating the plaintiffs' claims.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. Ext.B2 sale deed bearing document No.6013/2005 dated 25.11.2005 is found to be a sham document created by fraud and cheating and the same is cancelled.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Purushan alias Purushothaman
Party Age
57
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Prabhakaran
Party Age
72
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Vijayan
Party Age
68
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Padmini @ Baby
Party Age
60
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Rasika
Party Age
58
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
M.K.Pavithran
Party Age
58
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of sale deed no. 3915/97, Encumbrance certificate from 1.1.97 to 29.6.2017, various discharge summaries, and rent receipts.
Defendants Documents
Original sale deed no. 6031/2005, various tax receipts, and possession certificate.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
P.Chandresekkar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
S.Suneethi
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
E.M.Abdul Khadir
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
K.M.Faisal
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Amrin Fathima
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Rahul Roy
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Declaration that sale deed No. 6013/2005 is void and invalid.
Evidence:
It is declared that Ext.B1 document is not binding on the plaintiffs.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type: Cost
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiffs are entitled to costs of the suit.
Evidence:
The suit is decreed with costs.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the plaintiff's ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Certified copy of the Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Details the fraudulent sale deed executed in favor of the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Printout of Encumbrance certificate during the period
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates no encumbrance on the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Original Posthumous Fund Membership Card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supported the plaintiff's claims regarding health and finances.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Original Posthumous Fund Membership Card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Related to the cohabitant's financial involvement.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Discharge summary of plaintiff
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Details the plaintiff's medical condition.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Original rent receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demonstrates the rental income from the property.
Reference:
Ext.A7(a) to (d)
Document Type: Original letter
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Correspondence regarding the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Discharge summary of plaintiff
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further evidence of the plaintiff's medical issues.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type: Discharge summary of plaintiff
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Continued medical documentation of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type: Discharge summary of plaintiff
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates ongoing health challenges faced by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A11
Document Type: Discharge summary of plaintiff
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further supports the plaintiff's claims regarding health.
Reference:
Ext.A12
Document Type: Photocopy of certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certificate supporting the plaintiff's health status.
Reference:
Ext.A13
Document Type: Original Sale Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Claimed by the defendant to assert ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Original Sale Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Indicates the basis of the defendant's claim to the property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Photocopy of deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Historical documentation supporting the defendant's ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Photocopy of deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Further historical documentation.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Original tax receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Tax payments made on the property.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Original tax receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Continuity of tax payments made by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type: Original tax receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Demonstrates the defendant's financial responsibility.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type: Copy of receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Further evidence of property maintenance.
Reference:
Ext.B8
Document Type: Copy of receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Supports the defendant's claim regarding ongoing property taxes.
Reference:
Ext.B9
Document Type: Original possession certificate
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Indicates the defendant's possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B11
Document Type: Original Sale Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Shows additional property transactions relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.B12

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Fraudulent documents
Case Code
Case between Purushan alias Purushothaman et al vs M.K.Pavithran regarding decree of declaration and recovery of possession
Case Code Year
Case between Purushan alias Purushothaman et al vs M.K.Pavithran regarding decree of declaration and recovery of possession

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Fri, 02/03/2017 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Thu, 02/01/2024 - 12:00
To
Thu, 02/29/2024 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Mini Jolly vs Noel et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction.
THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between G Radhakrishnan vs M/s Goodhome Pvt. Ltd. et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Purushan O K vs Soman et al regarding injunction
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Santhosh P @ Santhoshkumar vs Suresh P.S, Mallika Shanmughan regarding fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Kochuthressia Thomas vs Gopalan, Kalidasan regarding recovery of possession and injunction.
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Defendant Won