Case Summary
The plaintiffs are claiming their right to a property of 2.393 cents against the defendants, who are contending that the property lies within their possession. The plaintiffs filed the suit to fix the boundary and prevent trespassing.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found that the plaintiffs could not establish their right and possession over the property claimed. Hence, the suit was dismissed.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to prove their right to the property and the alleged agreements were not supported by documentary evidence.
The plaintiffs failed to prove their right to the property and the alleged agreements were not supported by documentary evidence.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs failed to prove their right to the property and the alleged agreements were not supported by documentary evidence.
The plaintiffs failed to prove their right to the property and the alleged agreements were not supported by documentary evidence.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs could not establish that they have right or title over 2.393 cents, and the existence of boundary stones or dilapidated structures did not grant them possession.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, Suit is dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sebastian K J
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- John K J
- Party Age
- 49
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Jose K Joseph
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Jomol Joseph
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Lisamma Alexander
- Party Age
- 76
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Jijo Alex
- Party Age
- 44
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Biju Alex
- Party Age
- 48
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Binu Alex
- Party Age
- 42
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rubymol Alex
- Party Age
- 40
Plaintiffs Documents
Certificate of purchase of Kudikidappu dated 01.09.1970, Tax Receipt dated 21.04.2017, Cash Receipt dated 19.08.2017, Death Certificate dated 18.02.2017, Copy of Sale Deed no. 2983/1979.
Defendants Documents
Tax Receipt dated 10.04.2024.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P John Cherian
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sajith C George
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- G Jayasankar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.
Evidence:
In the circumstances described above it could be held that the plaintiffs could not establish their right and possession right and possession over plaint A schedule property.
Relief Type:
Boundary Fixation
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs requested the fixation of the southern and western boundary of the plaint A schedule property.
Evidence:
Hence there is no need to fix the boundary on the western side.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certificate of Purchase of Kudikidappu
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the plaintiffs' claim over the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates that the son of the late Ulahannan was paying land tax for the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Cash Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supports the plaintiffs' claims about transactions related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Death Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the legal heirs of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Copy of sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Details the transfer of property rights relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Supports the defendants' claim regarding the taxation of their property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Establishes the boundaries of the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Visual aid for understanding property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Details the measurements and conditions of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
A planning document related to the property measurements.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Sebastian K J et al vs Lisamma Alexander et al regarding fixation of boundary and injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Sebastian K J et al vs Lisamma Alexander et al regarding fixation of boundary and injunction