Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O. S. No.416/2016

Case between Varghese T V vs K P George et al regarding fixation of boundary and injunction

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, PERUMBAVOOR
Judge
Smt. Sumey Chandran
Order Date
2025-11-27
Duration
approximately-9 years 10 days

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff Varghese T V seeks a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction and fixation of boundary against defendants K P George and Paulose, alleging attempted trespass and encroachment on his property. The defendants contend the suit is not maintainable and assert the plaintiff's claims lack merit.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the exact boundary of his property, which was essential for obtaining an injunction. Therefore, the suit was dismissed.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff could not demonstrate clear possession over the disputed property or establish the boundary needed to justify injunction.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Varghese T V (63 years years) Thazhathedath House, Krariyeli Kara, Kombanadu Village

Defendants

K P George (60 years years) Kakkattukudy House, Pralayakkad Kara, Vengoor West Village Paulose (82 years years) Kakkattukudy House, Pralayakkad Kara, Vengoor West Village

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant to restrain from trespassing.
Evidence:
The plaintiff has, therefore, failed to discharge the burden cast upon him, and the issues regarding fixation of boundary and entitlement to injunction necessarily stand answered against him.
Relief Type: Fixation of Boundary
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff claimed for a decree for fixation of the boundary separating the A-schedule and B-schedule properties.
Evidence:
The plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing, with the degree of certainty required by law, the exact boundary of the A-schedule property so as to justify a decree for fixation of boundary.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document evidences the plaintiff's purchase of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document demonstrates the tax payment related to the property owned by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Commission report and Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This document includes the findings and drawings related to the property as assessed by the Advocate Commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Reports and Survey Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This document contains further assessments and the survey plan forwarded by the Advocate Commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Commission report and plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This document records additional findings related to the commission's assessments as per IA 1925/17.
Reference:
Ext.C2(b)

Quick Facts

Location
Perumbavoor
Case Filed
Mon, 10/10/2016 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
70%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases