Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Reetha and others, are seeking a boundary fixation and injunction against the defendants, Edward and others, concerning property partitioned post the death of Cheer Jose. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants have influenced authorities and mutated property deeds to their advantage.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed as the court found no evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claims regarding property boundaries and rights. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify their requests.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs did not provide evidence to support their claims regarding property demarcation.
The plaintiffs did not provide evidence to support their claims regarding property demarcation.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs did not provide evidence to support their claims regarding property demarcation.
The plaintiffs did not provide evidence to support their claims regarding property demarcation.
Supporting Evidence
The advocate commissioner reported that the plaint schedule property does not exist as per the plaint averments.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs of the suit.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Reetha
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Shaji
- Party Age
- 43
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Jasmine
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sherly
- Party Age
- 37
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nisha Mary
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Edward
- Party Age
- 68
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Suma mary
- Party Age
- 35
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mary Kutty
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Jini
- Party Age
- 32
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Jibi
- Party Age
- 31
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Partition Deed No. 2418/1990, Notice sent to District Collector and Survey Superintendent, Postal Receipt, Postal Acknowledgment Card, survey plan.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- John George
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Manoj Sreedhar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- AGP
- Appearance Type
- Government Pleader
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to fix the boundaries of the property.
Evidence:
Hence, this court is of the view that the plaintiff is also not entitled to consequential relief of an injunction.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs requested a mandatory injunction to ensure the boundary between properties is fixed.
Evidence:
Hence, this court is of the view that the plaintiff is also not entitled to consequential relief of an injunction.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the plaintiffs' ownership of the A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice was sent to the District Collector and Survey Superintendent regarding the case.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as proof of sending the notice.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Acknowledgment card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This card acknowledges the delivery of the notice.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document illustrates the planned layout of the scheduled property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Mahazar
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This document contains the findings of the Advocate Commissioner regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report details the measurements and assessments made by the Advocate Commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This plan is part of the court exhibits detailing the property layout.
Reference:
Ext.C1(b)
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This is another plan included in the court exhibits regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(c)
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 Reetha et al vs Edward et al regarding fixation, permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Reetha et al vs Edward et al regarding fixation, permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction.