Case Summary
Sreedharan and Thankamani filed a suit against Surendran for declaration of title and permanent prohibitory injunction regarding a property dispute. The plaintiffs assert their ownership over a property originally belonging to their mother, while the defendant claims rights based on kudikidappu.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the defendant, denying the plaintiffs their claim over the property and allowing the counterclaim for the defendant's rights.
Key Reasoning:
The defendant established ownership and possession over the counterclaim property based on legal documents.
The defendant established ownership and possession over the counterclaim property based on legal documents.
Why Defendant Won:
The defendant established ownership and possession over the counterclaim property based on legal documents.
The defendant established ownership and possession over the counterclaim property based on legal documents.
Supporting Evidence
It is established that the defendant/counterclaim plaintiff has title and possession over 2½ cents of property. Thus, a decree of declaration is granted in favour of the defendant/counterclaim plaintiff.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is dismissed and the counterclaim is decreed with costs as follows: It is declared that the counterclaim schedule property belongs to the counterclaim plaintiff/defendant.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sreedharan
- Party Age
- 64
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Thankamani
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Surendran
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Sale Deed No. 5479/1979, Kudikidappu Certificate, Settlement Deed No. 3771/1979, Sale Deed No. 2995/1998, Sale Deed No. 1825/1992.
Defendants Documents
Copy of Order in OA.No. 71/1990, Sale Deed No. 2099/2005, Sale Deed No. 5479/1972, Sale Deed No. 3771/1979, Release Deed No. 1964/2015.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- John George
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Saju George
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K.G.Bindu
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Chithra.D.S.
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a declaration of title and possession over the A schedule property.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs have failed to prove their title and possession over 2.20 ares claimed as the plaint A schedule property.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove obstructions.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs failed to prove the apprehension that the defendant may cause damage to the compound walls.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are not entitled to get a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as sought for.
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Counterclaim plaintiff was granted declaration of title over the counterclaim schedule property.
Evidence:
It is declared that the counterclaim schedule property belongs to the counterclaim plaintiff/defendant, as per Ext.B1 and A3 documents.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves the purchase of 4½ cents of land by Ambujakshi.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Kudikidappu Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes kudikidappu rights obtained by Ambujakshi.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Details the settlement of property among Ambujakshi's children.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates the sale of property from Sreemathy to the 1st plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the sale of property from Nalini to the 1st plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves that the 1st plaintiff is paying land tax on the properties.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further evidence of tax payment by the 1st plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Release deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Documents the release of interest by Ambujakshi’s husband.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Order Copy
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Certifies the kudikidappu rights granted to Nakulan.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Transfer of property from Nakulan to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Indicates the previous sale of property by Kurumba Rajamani.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Details the division of properties among heirs.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Release deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Document of release of rights by heirs of Nakulan.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Release deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Further release of rights in favor of the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Report detailing findings by the Advocate Commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Follow-up report on findings regarding the properties.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Sreedharan vs Surendran regarding Declaration and Injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Sreedharan vs Surendran regarding Declaration and Injunction