Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Shajeena Shameem and her father-in-law Hydrose, filed a suit seeking the fixation of boundaries for their property against the defendant Subaida, who they allege unlawfully removed boundary stones and obstructed their attempts to demarcate their property. The case revolves around possession and claims over the disputed property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit for fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction, stating that the plaintiff was not in possession of the entire property claimed and had not sought recovery of possession. The court found that the dispute was more about possession than simply a boundary issue.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff's failure to establish exclusive possession over the entire claimed property as mandated by law.
The plaintiff's failure to establish exclusive possession over the entire claimed property as mandated by law.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff's failure to establish exclusive possession over the entire claimed property as mandated by law.
The plaintiff's failure to establish exclusive possession over the entire claimed property as mandated by law.
Supporting Evidence
The court held that the suit for fixation of boundary, as framed, is legally unsustainable since the plaintiffs did not seek recovery of possession, which is necessary when claiming such reliefs.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Shajeena Shameem
- Party Age
- 36
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Hydrose
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Subaida
- Party Age
- 59
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Sale Deed No.1273/2004, Land Tax receipt, Sale Deed No.1524/99, Settlement Deed No.5570/1997
Defendants Documents
Sale Deed No.287/2014, Sale Deed No.745/2005, Sale Deed No.7168/2004, Judgment in OS.410/2017
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P M Ziraj
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Nimisha Antony
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Shibin Shery
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Irfan Ziraj
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Hashim Al Thaf
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with possession.
Evidence:
The settled legal position, as laid down by the High Court of Kerala, squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought fixation of the boundary of the property.
Evidence:
The suit for fixation of boundary presupposes lawful possession and that demarcation cannot be ordered where the real dispute is one of possession.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the title of the first plaintiff over the plaint A-schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the plaintiff's claim of ownership and possession.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is evidence relating to the ownership of property relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is further evidence of the plaintiff's claim to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document supports the defendant's claims regarding the boundary of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document serves as evidence for the defendant's ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document is additional evidence concerning the defendant's ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Judgment
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document refers to a previous judgment affecting the current case.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report provides critical evidence regarding the boundaries in question.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This sketch accompanies the commission report and illustrates property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Shajeena Shameem vs Subaida regarding fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Shajeena Shameem vs Subaida regarding fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction.