Case Summary
Saji Murikattu Varghese and Reena Saji are the plaintiffs seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against Manoj K. Thomas, K.A. Thomas, and Vinod K. Thomas. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have committed waste on their property and threaten to continue doing so, leading them to file this suit.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The plaintiffs were granted a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants restraining them from trespassing into the plaintiffs' property and from committing waste therein. The suit was decreed in part, with costs to be borne by the parties.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs were able to establish their right to the property as per documentation and evidence presented, whereas the defendants did not adequately prove their counterclaims.
The plaintiffs were able to establish their right to the property as per documentation and evidence presented, whereas the defendants did not adequately prove their counterclaims.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs were able to establish their right to the property as per documentation and evidence presented, whereas the defendants did not adequately prove their counterclaims.
The plaintiffs were able to establish their right to the property as per documentation and evidence presented, whereas the defendants did not adequately prove their counterclaims.
Supporting Evidence
On an overall analysis of the evidence on record, it can be held that the plaintiffs could establish that they have a right to use the plaint B schedule private road as reported by the Advocate Commissioner.
Judgment Evidence:
The suit is decreed in part, as follows; 1) The defendants and their men are hereby restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into plaint A schedule property, from changing the lie and nature of plaint B schedule private road as in existence and from committing any acts of waste therein.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Saji Murikattu Varghese
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Reena Saji
- Party Age
- 47
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Manoj K. Thomas
- Party Age
- 44
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- K.A. Thomas
- Party Age
- 77
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vinod K. Thomas
- Party Age
- 41
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Sale deed No. 26/2005, Tax receipt dated 12.07.2018
Defendants Documents
Power of Attorney, Sale deed No. 2138/2001, Sale deed No. 3111/2008, Settlement deed No. 1431/2012
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- J.P. Pious
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Abraham Philip Pampady
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Jacob.P.T.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Surendran P.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendants and their men are hereby restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into plaint A schedule property, from changing the lie and nature of plaint B schedule private road as in existence and from committing any acts of waste therein.
Evidence:
Hence the prayer to remove the structures in the said road (prayer for mandatory injunction) cannot be allowed. However, considering the apprehension of the plaintiffs, the relief for (permanent prohibitory injunction) injunction could be allowed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A1 deed would go to show that the plaintiffs obtained title over plaint A schedule property having an extent of 16.50 Ares.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A2 is the tax receipt dated 12.07.2018, which would go to evince that the plaintiffs were paying tax with regard to the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B2 is Sale deed no.2138/2001. By dint of Exhibit B2, the 1st defendant obtained title over the property having an extent of 10 cents comprised in Resurvey no.255/17.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B4 is Sale deed no.3111/2008, whereby the 1st defendant obtained title and right over 15.50 ares of property comprised in Resurvey no.255/9.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B6 is settlement deed no.1431/2012, whereby the 1st defendant obtained title over 8.50 Ares comprised in Resurvey no.255/20.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Exhibit C1 series are the report and plan prepared by the Advocate Commissioner, who visited the plaint schedule properties on 15.10.2018.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Saji Murikattu Varghese et al vs Manoj K. Thomas et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Saji Murikattu Varghese et al vs Manoj K. Thomas et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction