Case Summary
The plaintiffs are purchasers of two adjacent properties from the 1st defendant, asserting their right to a 4-meter-wide private road essential for access. They allege the 1st defendant subsequently encroached on this road by selling a portion of land to the 2nd defendant, reducing the road's width, which obstructed their access.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Mandatory injunction to demolish the wall and retain road width, permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit, ordering the 2nd defendant to demolish the encroaching compound wall and retain the original width of the road. It also issued a permanent prohibitory injunction against the 1st defendant from reducing the width of the road and ordered the defendants to pay costs to the plaintiffs.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs demonstrated their established rights through unchallenged evidence in both oral and documentary forms.
The plaintiffs demonstrated their established rights through unchallenged evidence in both oral and documentary forms.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs demonstrated their established rights through unchallenged evidence in both oral and documentary forms.
The plaintiffs demonstrated their established rights through unchallenged evidence in both oral and documentary forms.
Supporting Evidence
The unchallenged oral and documentary evidence is sufficient to grant a decree in favour of plaintiffs.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms. 1) 2ⁿᵈ defendant is directed by a mandatory injunction to demolish the compound wall constructed trespassing to the 4 metre wide private road and to retain the original width of 4 metre at his own costs within a period of three months or in case of default plaintiff is entitled to do so by the process of court.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Retish K
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Athira Sivan
- Party Age
- 34
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nijoy Peter M J
- Party Age
- 39
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mary Della
- Party Age
- 37
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ramesh Vasudeva
- Party Age
- 68
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Syamkumar R
- Party Age
- 44
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Sale deed No.3755/2022, Sale deed No.3756/2022, Notices sent to 1st and 2nd defendants, Reply dated 25.10.2024
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Nandakumar A
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Retish R
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Athira Sivan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Direction for the 2nd defendant to demolish the encroaching compound wall and retain the original width of the road.
Evidence:
2ⁿᵈ defendant is directed by a mandatory injunction to demolish the compound wall constructed trespassing to the 4 metre wide private road and to retain the original width of 4 metre at his own costs within a period of three months or in case of default plaintiff is entitled to do so by the process of court.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Restraint on the 1st defendant from reducing the width of the road.
Evidence:
1st defendant is restrained by permanent prohibitory injunction from alienating the property by reducing the width of 4 metre wide road.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiffs.
Evidence:
Defendants are directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiffs.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notarised copy of sale deed confirming purchase and rights over the private road.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Sale deed confirming purchase and rights over the private road.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Sale deed related to the property affecting the private road.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Legal Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notices sent to defendants regarding the obstruction of the private road.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Legal Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notices sent to defendants regarding the obstruction of the private road.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
The copy of reply
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Reply to query related to the property and road access.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Report confirming the reduced width of the private road due to encroachment.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Sketch accompanying the commission report for visual evidence of the road width.
Reference:
Ext.C1 (a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Retish K et al vs Ramesh Vasudeva et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Retish K et al vs Ramesh Vasudeva et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction