Case Summary
The plaintiff, Thomas Mathew, alleges that the defendants caused damage to his property by filling their land with construction debris. The suit seeks compensation and an injunction against the defendants' actions.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is dismissed as the plaintiff could not establish the damage caused by the defendants. The court found insufficient evidence to support the plaintiff's claims.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants caused damage to his property.
The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants caused damage to his property.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants caused damage to his property.
The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants caused damage to his property.
Supporting Evidence
On an overall analysis of entire evidence on record it can be held that the plaintiff could not establish his case.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result; the suit is dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Thomas Mathew @ K T Mathew
- Party Age
- 61
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Raveendran Nair
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Saroja Devi
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Settlement Deed No. 1533/99, Sale Deed No. 887/94, Tax Receipts dated 24.04.2017 and 18.04.2024.
Defendants Documents
Not mentioned.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Josekutty Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P V Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Damages
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff claims damages amounting to Rs.1 lakh and additional expenses for the wall repair.
Evidence:
On an overall analysis of entire evidence on record it can be held that the plaintiff could not establish his case. Hence the reliefs prayed for cannot be allowed.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction to construct a protective wall.
Evidence:
Hence the reliefs prayed for cannot be allowed.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendants from trespassing onto his property.
Evidence:
Hence the reliefs prayed for cannot be allowed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A1 is the sale deed no.1533/99, whereby the plaintiff obtained property having an extent of 1.62 ares.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A2 is the sale deed no.887/94, whereby the plaintiff obtained property having an extent of 1.35 Ares.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A3 is the tax receipt dated 24.04.2017 which shows that the plaintiff was paying tax for the plaint schedule item no.1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A4 is the tax receipt dated 18.04.2024 which shows that the plaintiff was paying tax for the plaint schedule item no.1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Complaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A5 is the copy of the complaint dated 04.10.2017 filed by the plaintiff before the Municipality, Kottayam regarding the damage caused by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A6 is the notice dated 14.11.2017 issued by Executive Engineer directing the defendants to construct a wall.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Proceedings
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A7 shows the proceedings initiated by the Municipality.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A9 is the notice dated 10.01.2020 issued by the Executive Engineer directing the defendants to take steps to protect the compound wall.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type:
FIR
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A11 is the certified copy of FIR No. 114/2018 of Kottayam East P S regarding the trespass by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A11
Document Type:
Order
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A12 is the certified copy of order in Crl. R P no. 12/2023 of Addl. Sessions Court V, Kottayam related to the dispute.
Reference:
Ext.A12
Document Type:
Notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B2 is the true copy of notice issued to the plaintiff by the Kottayam Municipality.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Hearing Notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B3 is the hearing notice issued by the Health Supervisor of Kottayam Municipality.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B4 is the true copy of the notice issued to the plaintiff by Kottayam Municipality.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Objection
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B5 is the true copy of objection filed by the defendant before the Executive Engineer.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B6 is the true copy of the notice issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Order
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B7 is the true copy of the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate directing actions regarding the trees.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type:
Application
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B8 is the true copy of application filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
Reference:
Ext.B8
Document Type:
Notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B9 is the notice issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
Reference:
Ext.B9
Document Type:
Proceedings
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B10 is the proceedings of Sub Divisional Magistrate.
Reference:
Ext.B10
Document Type:
Complaint
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B11 is the true copy of the complaint filed by the defendant before the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
Reference:
Ext.B11
Document Type:
Order
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B12 is the certified copy of order in Crl. R P no. 13/2018 of Sessions Court, Kottayam.
Reference:
Ext.B12
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Exhibit C1 is the Commission Report prepared regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Expert Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Exhibit C2 is the Commission Report and Expert Report regarding the condition of the compound wall.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Thomas Mathew @ K T Mathew vs Raveendran Nair et al regarding damages and injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Thomas Mathew @ K T Mathew vs Raveendran Nair et al regarding damages and injunction.