Case Summary
The case involves Sasidharan K., the plaintiff, challenging the defendants led by Chandri regarding the accessibility and ownership of a pathway that the plaintiff claims is the only route to his property. The plaintiff seeks a prohibitory injunction against the defendants who have allegedly obstructed this route.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found that the plaintiff, Sasidharan K., failed to establish his right over the claimed pathway and therefore dismissed the suit.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff did not adequately prove the identity and boundaries of the claimed pathway.
The plaintiff did not adequately prove the identity and boundaries of the claimed pathway.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff did not adequately prove the identity and boundaries of the claimed pathway.
The plaintiff did not adequately prove the identity and boundaries of the claimed pathway.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has failed to establish his right over Plaint B schedule property. The burden is always on the plaintiff to prove his case.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sasidharan K.
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Chandri
- Party Age
- 75
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Byju
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Shibin
- Party Age
- 28
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Shylaja
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Registered Gift deed No.938/82, Registered Kanam Deed No.2270/86, Copies of complaints filed by Ajitha.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. M.P. Sunil Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. B.M. Shamsudhin
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a prohibitory injunction against the defendants regarding the usage of plaint B schedule property.
Evidence:
The plaintiff has failed to establish his case. Therefore these issues are found against the plaintiff and answered accordingly.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Title deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Registered Gift deed executed by Raman in favour of Sasidharan.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Title deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Registered Kanam Deed executed by Velayudhan and others in favour of Sasidharan.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Complaint
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Copy of complaint filed by Ajitha before SI of Elathur Police Station.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Complaint
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Copy of complaint filed by Ajitha before SI of Elathur Police Station.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of Partition deed entered into between Chandri, Shylaja, Shyamala, Shyni and others.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report filed by Advocate Commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commissioner’s Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commissioner’s plan.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report filed by Advocate Commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Commissioner’s Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commissioner’s plan.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Sasidharan K. vs Chandri et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Sasidharan K. vs Chandri et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction