Case Summary
Saroja is the plaintiff seeking a permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against Sushanth, Santha, and Mohanan for obstructing her access to her property. The dispute arises over the ownership and accessibility of a way that the defendants allegedly block.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed with costs as the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a public road and the identify of the property. Additionally, the claim made by the plaintiff was deemed not credible.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the claimed public road and the identity of the plaint schedule property.
The plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the claimed public road and the identity of the plaint schedule property.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the claimed public road and the identity of the plaint schedule property.
The plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the claimed public road and the identity of the plaint schedule property.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has failed to prove or establish the existence of a public road leading to the plaint schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Saroja
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sushanth
- Party Age
- 39
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Santha
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mohanam. V. K
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Janmam Assignment Deed No. 838/1995, Basic Tax Receipt, Photographs, Certificate as per Indian Evidence Act 1872, Certified copy of Notice issued by Purameri Grama Panchayath, Certified copy of Letter issued by Secretary, Purameri Grama Panchayath.
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of written statement in OS. 131/2023, Certified copy of Settlement Deed No. 1121/16 of SRO, Kakkattil.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. M. Siju
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Divya. K. K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P. Balagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P. Arun Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from trespassing onto the property.
Evidence:
The plaintiff has failed to prove or establish the existence of a public road leading to the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to demolish the compound wall constructed by the defendants.
Evidence:
The relief of mandatory injunction goes.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Title deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The title deed is used to establish the plaintiff's ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt serves as evidence of the plaintiff's legal standing with respect to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Photograph
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Photographs are intended to demonstrate the condition of the disputed property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Compact Disc
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The compact disc contains photographs relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice issued by the Panchayath relates to the complaints against the obstruction of the way.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Letter from the Panchayath further supports the plaintiff's claims regarding the public way.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Written Statement
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document provides the defendants' response to the plaintiff's claims.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Settlement deed is cited to establish the defendants' ownership and boundaries of their property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The commission report assesses the state of the plaint schedule property and any obstructions.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commissioner's Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commissioner's plan visually represents the layout and boundary details of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Saroja vs Sushanth et al regarding permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Saroja vs Sushanth et al regarding permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction