Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Rajan Augustine and Molly Elizabeth, are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants, who are their neighbors, to prevent them from demolishing a compound wall and obstructing their peaceful possession of their property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendants are permanently restrained from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property and from demolishing the eastern side compound wall.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, permanently restraining the defendants from trespassing and demolishing the compound wall
Why Plaintiff Won:
The evidence of the plaintiffs remains unchallenged, proving their ownership and the necessity of the injunction.
The evidence of the plaintiffs remains unchallenged, proving their ownership and the necessity of the injunction.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The evidence of the plaintiffs remains unchallenged, proving their ownership and the necessity of the injunction.
The evidence of the plaintiffs remains unchallenged, proving their ownership and the necessity of the injunction.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ext. A1 to A4 and C1 series would prove the case of the plaintiffs. Pleadings and evidence of the plaintiffs remain unchallenged.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs as follows: 1. The defendants and their men are permanently restrained from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property and from demolishing the eastern side compound wall.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Rajan Augustine
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Molly Elizabeth
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Gopala Krishnan
- Party Age
- 70
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Bhanumathy
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Selvakumar
- Party Age
- 40
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Joy
- Party Age
- 65
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kavitha
- Party Age
- 40
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 4030/1994, Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1333/1999, Copy of Land Tax Receipts dated 30/04/2022.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- D.Baiju Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Abhirami Shalu
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Vayanakam S.R.Prasanth
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Aliyazha Sakir
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Court
- Advocate Name
- Swaraj.S.
- Appearance Type
- Government Pleader
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Permanently restraining the defendants from trespassing and demolishing the compound wall.
Evidence:
The defendants and their men are permanently restrained from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property and from demolishing the eastern side compound wall.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs entitled to costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
Plaintiffs are also entitled to realise the costs of the suit from the defendants.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves the plaintiffs' ownership of plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves the plaintiffs' ownership of plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows that plaintiffs are remitting land tax for plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows that plaintiffs are remitting land tax for plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Reports on the boundaries and current conditions of the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Mahazar
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Supplemental report concerning the examination of plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Visual representation related to the examination of plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(b)
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Evidence provided by witness PW1 regarding ownership and the conflict.
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Rajan Augustine et al vs Gopala Krishnan et al regarding injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Rajan Augustine et al vs Gopala Krishnan et al regarding injunction.