Case Summary
The plaintiffs, who are brothers, are seeking an injunction against their uncle, the defendant, regarding access to a well on the defendant's property. The plaintiffs claim an easementary right to draw water from the well, which they assert was granted in a partition deed.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Injunction
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit as the plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of the well from which they claimed the right to draw water. No evidence provided was deemed sufficient to support their claim.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to prove the present existence of the well and their claim of easementary right.
The plaintiffs failed to prove the present existence of the well and their claim of easementary right.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs failed to prove the present existence of the well and their claim of easementary right.
The plaintiffs failed to prove the present existence of the well and their claim of easementary right.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs must therefore demonstrate, by acceptable evidence, that the well subsists in the defendant’s property and that the right claimed is capable of being exercised. The plaintiffs have therefore failed to establish the very foundation of their claim.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Thomas
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Gracy Sunny
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Jose
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- James
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mercy Sojan
- Party Age
- 49
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- K T Pathrose
- Party Age
- 68
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of partition deed No. 1240/1971, Land Tax Receipt, Village Office Perumbavoor (various dates)
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- N. P. Sunilkumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K. C. Muraleedharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Anil Ravi
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing their alleged right to draw water from a well.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs have therefore failed to establish the very foundation of their claim.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is the partition deed under which the plaintiffs claim their right to draw water from the well situated on the defendant's property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the plaintiffs' claim related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the plaintiffs' claim related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Caveat Petition
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is relevant to the proceedings of the suit.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Case Classification
Case Type
Injunction
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.
Case Code Year
2019