Case Summary
Usha George and P.P. George are the plaintiffs seeking an injunction against Prakash Thankappan and others. The case involves a dispute over the use of a road that the defendants are attempting to obstruct.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from closing down item No.6 road.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants preventing them from obstructing a road used by the plaintiffs.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The evidence shows that defendants have been attempting to close down the road in question, which the plaintiffs use.
The evidence shows that defendants have been attempting to close down the road in question, which the plaintiffs use.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The evidence shows that defendants 1 to 4 along with 5th defendant are attempting to close down item No.6 road by placing a gate. This evidence remains unrebutted. Hence considering the evidence available, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as sought for.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result the suit is decreed as follows:- 1. The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from closing down item No.6 road, causing obstruction by placing a gate therein, reducing the width of item No.6 and obstructing the use of item No.6 by plaintiffs for their ingress and egress including vehicular traffic.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Usha George
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- P.P. George
- Party Age
- 73
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Prakash Thankappan
- Party Age
- 55
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Thomas Kurian
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Jamma V. Jacob
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Jacob Mathew
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of partition deed No.3731/1981, Certified copy of deed No. 1981/1997, Certified copy of deed No. 3869/1999, Original will deed No. 2/2003, Tax receipt dated 16-04-2024.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- George Kurian
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendants are restrained from closing down item No.6 road.
Evidence:
The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from closing down item No.6 road, causing obstruction by placing a gate therein.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff is entitled to get the cost of the suit from defendants.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is entitled to get the cost of the suit from defendants and their assets.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves the title of the plaintiff over the property described.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the transaction related to the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further supports the plaintiff's ownership claim.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Original Will Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the devolution of property to the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Validates the plaintiff's association with the property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Offers proof of previous transactions related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Details sales history impacting the plaintiff's claim.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Adds to the context of ownership and transactions.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Copy of plan
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Illustrates the layout of the disputed property.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type:
Mahazar
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Documents the findings of the Advocate Commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Provides a visual representation of the property in dispute.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kanjirappally
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S
Case Code Year
2024