Case Summary
The petitioners, Shinu and others, are seeking an injunction against the defendants, Harinathan and others, who they claim are improperly trying to pave bricks on a pathway they believe is under their ownership. The defendants argue that the pathway is government land and they have rights to it.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The petition seeking an injunction was dismissed by the court. The court found no prima facie case in favor of the petitioners.
Key Reasoning:
The court found that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case as the land in question is government property.
The court found that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case as the land in question is government property.
Why Defendant Won:
The court found that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case as the land in question is government property.
The court found that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case as the land in question is government property.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs cannot claim any independent right over a government land. These respondents have got every right to make use of it and the plaintiffs have no right to obstruct these respondents.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, this petition is dismissed. On considering the facts and circumstances there is no order as costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Shinu
- Party Age
- 46
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sini
- Party Age
- 41
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Kamalamma
- Party Age
- 74
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Harinathan
- Party Age
- 36
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Anu
- Party Age
- 36
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Satheesh
- Party Age
- 44
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Dilsha Rani
- Party Age
- 39
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Notice issued by Kollam Corporation, Reply issued by state Public Information Officer and Superintendent, RDO, Office, Kollam to 1st plaintiff.
Defendants Documents
Basic Tax Register.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- I. Soufiuar & Muraleedharan Pillai.N
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Usha Devi. K.C. & Premachandran P.R
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Temporary injunction sought by the plaintiffs to restrain defendants from paving inter locks in the plaint B schedule pathway.
Evidence:
I am not inclined to allow the petition.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Issued by Kollam Corporation regarding the matter
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Reply
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
A reply issued by the state Public Information Officer regarding the inquiry made by the plaintiff
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Basic Tax Register
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Indicates that the pathway in contention is a public way
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Prepared and submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, providing insights regarding the property in question
Reference:
Ext.C1 series
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS
Case Code Year
2021