Case Summary
Vijayan Nair has filed a suit against Mini Rajan seeking a perpetual injunction to prevent her from trespassing on his property. The plaintiff claims he has been in possession of the property and that the defendant has attempted to interfere with his rights.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction as the property in question was not identifiable or properly demarcated. Therefore, the suit was dismissed.
Key Reasoning:
The property was not identifiable or properly demarcated.
The property was not identifiable or properly demarcated.
Why Defendant Won:
The property was not identifiable or properly demarcated.
The property was not identifiable or properly demarcated.
Supporting Evidence
Even though, there is no dispute regarding the possession of the property by the plaintiff, the plaint schedule property could not be found to be identifiable.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit stands dismissed. No costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Vijayan Nair
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mini Rajan
- Party Age
- 47
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of partition deed No. 1226/1963, Land tax receipt, Profession Certificate, True copy of F.I.R. No. 1289/2016
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of Decree in O.S. 72/2013 at Munsiff’s Court, Perumbavoor
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- T.N Arunkumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Biji Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P.K. Baiju
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff requested a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from trespassing.
Evidence:
Even though there is no dispute regarding the possession of the property by the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not be found to be entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction, as the property is not identifiable.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the partition deed vested property rights to the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of tax payment for the property, supporting the plaintiff's claim.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Possession Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of possession of the property by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
FIR
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document evidencing the police complaint regarding the defendant's trespass.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Additional evidence of tax payment for the property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Decree
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy of the decree related to the defendant's mother’s property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Report that includes a rough sketch of the property and its boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission report and Survey plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Detailed report and survey plan regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Vijayan Nair vs Mini Rajan regarding perpetual injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Vijayan Nair vs Mini Rajan regarding perpetual injunction