Case Summary
The plaintiffs, a husband and wife represented by their Power of Attorney holder, are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant who is attempting to encroach on their property. The case revolves around the ownership and access rights to a disputed pathway.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant from trespassing into the plaintiffs' property and ordering the defendant to pay the costs of the suit.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court determined that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and in possession of the disputed pathway.
The court determined that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and in possession of the disputed pathway.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court determined that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and in possession of the disputed pathway.
The court determined that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and in possession of the disputed pathway.
Supporting Evidence
Upon reviewing the documents produced, it is clear that the plaint B schedule pathway is not a public pathway. The court has established that the plaintiffs have exclusive possession of it.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms. 1) Defendant is restrained from trespassing into plaint A and B schedule property and commit any waste therein. 2) Defendants are directed to pay the cost of the suit to plaintiffs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Tomy George
- Party Age
- 68
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Lissy Thomas
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- George Joseph
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Basheer
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Power of Attorney, Certified copy of Sale deed no. 5216/1994, Certified copy of Sale deed no. 5215/1994, Certified copy of Sale deed no. 6299/94, Copy of report by Asst. Executive Engineer Corporation Kochi, Certified copy of Advocate Commissioner’s report in I A 703/13 in OS 110/13, Certified copy of Judgment in OS 110/13 of Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, Certified copy of Decree in OS 110/2013 of Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, Certified copy of the Document no. 635/2007 of SRO Edappally, Certified copy of Document no. 929/2011 of SRO Edappally, Certified copy of Re Survey Sketch related to Block No. 37, Edappally North Village, Certified copy of relevant page of Basic Tax register related to plaint B Schedule issued by Village Office, Edappally North Village
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of Sale deed no. 1988/1991 of SRO Edappally, Certified copy of Sale deed no. 929/2011 of SRO Edappally, Certified copy of Sale deed no. 635/2007 of SRO Edappally, Certified copy of Sale deed no. 4225/2002 of SRO Edappally, Original location sketch cum certificate issued by Village Office Edappally North, Certified copy of Re Survey Sketch of Re Survey Block No. 37 of Edappally North Village issued by office of the Assistant director of Survey and land records Kakkanad.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Ghosh Yohannan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- N G Surendran
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Permanent injunction restraining defendant from trespassing into plaint A and B schedule properties.
Evidence:
The court finds that the plaint B schedule property is in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs. The defendants have no right over said pathway.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants directed to pay the cost of the suit to plaintiffs.
Evidence:
On the basis of finding in issue Nos. 1 to 3 this court is satisfied that plaintiff has proved his case and hence suit is liable to be decreed with costs.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Produced as proof of the plaintiffs being represented by Mr. George Joseph.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the plaintiffs' ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Support for the plaintiffs' ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further evidence of the plaintiffs' title to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Report
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Report confirming the plaintiffs' claims regarding the pathway.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Commissioner's Report
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provides findings from the commission about the property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Judgment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Judgment supporting the plaintiffs' position in a related case.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Decree
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Legal decree affirming the plaintiffs' rights.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Document
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further evidence supporting plaintiffs' claims.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type:
Document
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Additional document related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type:
Survey Sketch
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy illustrating property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.A11
Document Type:
Basic Tax Register
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates ownership details related to the B schedule.
Reference:
Ext.A12
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Defendant's document showing property boundary.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Evidence related to the defendant's claims.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Further evidence of defendant's title.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Document supporting the defendant's assertion.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Further evidence regarding usage of the pathway.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Re Survey Sketch
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Sketch indicating property demarcation.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Report from the court regarding the property inspection.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Illustrates property layout as part of the court report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Witness testimonies provided during the hearing.
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Tomy George et al vs Basheer regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Tomy George et al vs Basheer regarding permanent prohibitory injunction