Case Summary
The plaintiff, V.A.Sreekandan Nair, is seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction against the defendant, Dr.Mathew M Mandoli, regarding property rights over pathways. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant illegally constructed a compound wall and blocked access to the pathways, while the defendant claims ownership through adverse possession.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish the cause of action or prove ownership. The court found that the defendant's possession of the property was adverse and continuous, thus supporting his claim of ownership.
Key Reasoning:
The defendant successfully proved adverse possession over the properties in question.
The defendant successfully proved adverse possession over the properties in question.
Why Defendant Won:
The defendant successfully proved adverse possession over the properties in question.
The defendant successfully proved adverse possession over the properties in question.
Supporting Evidence
The claim of adverse possession raised by the defendant would not hold ground. The issue is accordingly answered against the defendant.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- V.A.Sreekandan Nair
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- S/o late Bhageerathi Amma
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Dr.Mathew M Mandoli
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- S/o V.O.Mathai
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of the Sale deed no. 1276/97 of Edapally SRO, Certified copy of the Sale deed no. 3098/08 of Edapally SRO, Photographers showing the lie and nature of plaint B and C schedule properties (subject to proof)
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of the plaint in OS no. 1013/05, Certified copy of the written statement filed by the defendant in OS no. 1013/05, Certified copy of the Commission Report filed by the Advocate Commissioner, Certified copy of the decree passed by the 3rd Additional Munsiff Court in OS no. 1013/05.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- A.Balagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- A.Rajagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sojo J Kallidukkil
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sreedas
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K.S.Sajeev Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Mohandas K Chacko
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smitha E Mohan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant's actions.
Evidence:
The suit for permanent prohibitory injunction is clearly barred by law of limitation.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to remove alleged obstructions.
Evidence:
The mandatory injunction sought by the plaintiff is not maintainable, given the facts.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Produced to show the plaintiff's previous ownership of the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Produced to establish the chain of ownership leading to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Photographs
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Marked subject to proof to show the lie and nature of plaint B and C schedule properties.
Reference:
Ext.A3(a) and A3(b)
Document Type:
Certified Copy of the plaint
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Provided to show the defendant's claim in relation to the ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Certified Copy of the written statement
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Filed to present the defendant's arguments in the related case.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Filed subject to proof to assert the existence of the boundary wall.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Filed subject to proof in relation to the status of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Interim Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Filed subject to proof to assess the conditions on site.
Reference:
Ext.C1
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 V.A.Sreekandan Nair vs Dr.Mathew M Mandoli regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between V.A.Sreekandan Nair vs Dr.Mathew M Mandoli regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction