Case Summary
Sivasankaran A.N. and Biju A.S. are the plaintiffs seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against Saramma Mathew, T.M. Mathew, and Aleetta Elsa Biji. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants attempted to unlawfully take possession of their properties and modify them without authorization.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against trespassing, altering property, and mining rocks.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed that the defendants are permanently restrained from trespassing on the plaintiffs' properties and making unauthorized alterations. The plaintiffs are also entitled to recover the costs of the suit.
Why Plaintiff Won:
Evidence showed that the defendants did not hand over the original document to the plaintiffs.
Evidence showed that the defendants did not hand over the original document to the plaintiffs.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Evidence showed that the defendants did not hand over the original document to the plaintiffs.
Evidence showed that the defendants did not hand over the original document to the plaintiffs.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence remains unrebutted; the defendants did not appear before the court.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result the suit is decreed as follows: 1 The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing on the plaint schedule properties, altering the nature of the property, forcibly taking possession of the property, destroying the boundaries of the property and mining the rocks therefrom.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sivasankaran A.N.
- Party Age
- 80
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Biju A.S.
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Saramma Mathew
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- T.M. Mathew
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Aleetta Elsa Biji
- Party Age
- 22
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copies of Sale Deed No.3511/1995, Sale Deed No.2214/1995, Sale Deed No.2569/1995, tax receipts, cheques for advance sale consideration.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P. Biju
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Samsan Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendants are restrained from trespassing on the plaint schedule properties and altering their nature.
Evidence:
Hence considering the evidence available, the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree as sought for.
Relief Type:
Cost of the suit
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs are entitled to get the cost of the suit from defendants and their assets.
Evidence:
Plaintiffs are entitled to get the cost of the suit from defendants and their assets.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
It establishes ownership of plaint schedule item No.1 property by the 1st plaintiff's late wife, Leelamma.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
It supports the claim of the 2nd plaintiff regarding ownership of plaint schedule item No.2 property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
It validates the ownership of plaint schedule item No.3 property by the son of the 1st plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
It indicates the payment of tax for the plaint schedule properties.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
It confirms tax payment related to plaint schedule properties.
Reference:
Ext.A4(a)
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
It proves tax payment for one of the plaint schedule properties.
Reference:
Ext.A4(b)
Document Type:
Cheque
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
It is a cheque issued as advance sale consideration, which was later dishonoured.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Cheque
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
It is another cheque issued as advance sale consideration, which was also dishonoured.
Reference:
Ext.A5(a)
Document Type:
Copy of statement of account
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
It provides financial details related to the 2nd plaintiff's account during a specific period.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Photocopy of agreement for sale
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
It outlines the agreement related to the sale of the plaint schedule properties, which is subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kanjirappally
Common Reasons
Trespass
Case Code
O.S
Case Code Year
2024
Case Flags
Cheque-Related Case
Nature of Cheque Case
Cheque Dishonour