Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Simson.P.Mathew and Thomas Mathew, conducted a nature-friendly farm restaurant on property owned by the defendants. The suit was filed to prevent the defendants from forcibly evicting the plaintiffs from the property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit, stating that the plaintiffs failed to prove the identity of the property for which they sought the injunction.
Key Reasoning:
Plaintiffs did not establish the identity of the property as pleaded.
Plaintiffs did not establish the identity of the property as pleaded.
Why Defendant Won:
Plaintiffs did not establish the identity of the property as pleaded.
Plaintiffs did not establish the identity of the property as pleaded.
Supporting Evidence
Going through Ext.A1 it can be seen that description plaint schedule property was not tallying with it.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is dismissed. No costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Simson.P.Mathew
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Thomas Mathew
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- N.K.Kurian
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Lathika Kurian
- Party Age
- 49
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kevin Kurian
- Party Age
- 21
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kiran Kurian
- Party Age
- 17
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Abhilash Chandran
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Agreement dated 01/02/2017, Receipts of payments dated 10.02.2017, 17.02.2017, 22.02.2017, 28.02.2017
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- R.Gaganan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.Krishnakumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Request for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain defendants from forcibly evicting the plaintiffs.
Evidence:
Hence, I am of view that plaintiffs are not entitled to get a decree for injunction as prayed for.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Agreement dated 01/02/2017 regarding the operation of the restaurant.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Receipt of the payment dated 10.02.2017.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Receipt of the payment dated 17.02.2017.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Receipt of the payment dated 22.02.2017.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Receipt of the payment dated 28.02.2017.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Urgent Commission report filed by Adv.Harikrishnan.S.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch prepared by Adv.Commissioner attached along with the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Vaikom
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Simson.P.Mathew vs N.K.Kurian et al regarding injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Simson.P.Mathew vs N.K.Kurian et al regarding injunction