Case Summary
The plaintiffs, led by Sasi, seek a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, Kali and others, claiming their access to a pathway has been obstructed. The defendants deny any obstruction and contend that the plaintiffs have no legal right over the pathway.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit with costs, finding that the plaintiffs did not establish their legal right over the pathway.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to prove the existence or legal standing over the E Schedule pathway.
The plaintiffs failed to prove the existence or legal standing over the E Schedule pathway.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs failed to prove the existence or legal standing over the E Schedule pathway.
The plaintiffs failed to prove the existence or legal standing over the E Schedule pathway.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs have not established any legal right and that there is potential threat against their use of the alleged plaint E schedule way.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sasi
- Party Age
- 64
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Valsala
- Party Age
- 67
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Indulekha
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sindu
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- N.K. Santha
- Party Age
- 64
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kali
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Chandran
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rajappan
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sudhi
- Party Age
- 30
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Deepa
- Party Age
- 25
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1084/1977, Certified copy of Partition Deed No. 3174/2010, Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 344/2013
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Biju Abraham
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Asha B. Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Vidya Kuriakose
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Jose. Tom C. Kandathil
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sreekumar D. Menon
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Mathai K.D.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants regarding usage of the E schedule.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs have not established any legal right and that there is potential threat against their use of the alleged plaint E schedule way.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction to remove obstructions in the E schedule pathway.
Evidence:
No documents were tendered in evidence by the plaintiffs to show that there was the existence of E schedule pathway as contended.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No. 1084/1977 of Thrippunithura SRO, used to establish ownership of the property by the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of partition deed No. 3174/2010 of Thrippunithura SRO, supporting the legal heirs' claim to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No. 344/2013 of Thrippunithura SRO, indicated in the plaint.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report filed by Adv. Anith M.P, providing an assessment relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Sketch enclosed along with commission report to illustrate the property in question.
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 Sasi et al vs Kali et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Sasi et al vs Kali et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction