Case Summary
This suit involves brothers Sebastian Mathew @ Sunny and Joseph Mathew as plaintiffs against their brothers Tomy Mathew and Abraham Mathew as defendants. The case concerns claims for easement and permanent prohibitory injunction regarding property pathways.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court has dismissed the suit as the plaintiffs failed to establish their claim over the pathways. There was insufficient evidence to prove the alleged easement rights.
Key Reasoning:
Plaintiffs failed to prove their right over the pathway as claimed.
Plaintiffs failed to prove their right over the pathway as claimed.
Why Defendant Won:
Plaintiffs failed to prove their right over the pathway as claimed.
Plaintiffs failed to prove their right over the pathway as claimed.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff failed to prove any right over the plaint schedule item No.8 pathway. Hence, the case of the plaintiff cannot be upheld.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is dismissed. No order is made as to costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sebastian Mathew @ Sunny
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Jose Mathew
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Tomy Mathew
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Abraham Mathew
- Party Age
- 67
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of sale deed No.825/1981, Land tax receipt, Certified copy of final decree in O.S No.41/1998.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Seby Cherian
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Abu Joseph P
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Request for declaration of easement rights over the pathways.
Evidence:
Hence the case of the plaintiff cannot be upheld.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Request for a permanent prohibitory injunction against obstructions to the pathways.
Evidence:
Hence the case of the plaintiff cannot be upheld.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Request for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to construct a retaining wall.
Evidence:
In such circumstances, plaintiff is not entitled for a mandatory injunction as prayed for.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No.825/1981 establishing the plaintiff's ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Land tax receipt corroborating the plaintiff's possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Final Decree
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of final decree in O.S No.41/1998 evidencing partition of property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report addressing the status of the plaint schedule item No.8 pathway.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch accompanying the commission report relevant to the property in dispute.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Pala
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Sebastian Mathew @ Sunny et al vs Tomy Mathew et al regarding declaration and injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Sebastian Mathew @ Sunny et al vs Tomy Mathew et al regarding declaration and injunction