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
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.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Sasi (64 years years)
Kuthiravattathu Parambil House, Chitrapuzha, Irimpanm, Thiruvankulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District
Valsala (67 years years)
Koreth House, Chitrapuzha, Irimpanm, Thiruvankulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District-682 305
Indulekha (42 years years)
Koreth House, Chitrapuzha, Irimpanm, Thiruvankulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District-682 305
Sindu (38 years years)
Koreth House, Chitrapuzha, Irimpanm, Thiruvankulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District-682 305
N.K. Santha (64 years years)
Kuthiravattathu Parambil House, Chitrapuzha, Irimpanm, Thiruvankulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District - 682 305
Defendants
Kali (70 years years)
Kuthiravattathu Parambil House, Chitrapuzha, Irimpanm, Thiruvankulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District- 682 305
Chandran (45 years years)
Kuthiravattathu Parambil House, Chitrapuzha, Irimpanm, Thiruvankulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District-682 305
Rajappan (40 years years)
Kuthiravattathu Parambil House, Chitrapuzha, Irimpanm, Thiruvankulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District-682 305
Sudhi (30 years years)
Kuthiravattathu Parambil House, Chitrapuzha, Irimpanm, Thiruvankulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District-682 305
Deepa (25 years years)
Kuthiravattathu Parambil House, Chitrapuzha, Irimpanm, Thiruvankulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District - 682 305
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)