Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Vinodhini and Anju, filed a suit against the defendants, Surendran and Rajamma, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction regarding property disputes. The plaintiffs claim ownership and possession of certain land and are seeking protection against the defendants' alleged attempts to establish boundaries unlawfully.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants regarding the property boundaries.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court delivered a decree for a permanent prohibitory injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from causing any destruction or damage to the plaintiffs' property boundaries and allowing the plaintiffs to recover costs from the defendants.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs provided unchallenged evidence establishing their possessory rights to the property.
The plaintiffs provided unchallenged evidence establishing their possessory rights to the property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs provided unchallenged evidence establishing their possessory rights to the property.
The plaintiffs provided unchallenged evidence establishing their possessory rights to the property.
Supporting Evidence
The 1st plaintiff gave evidence as PW1. She filed proof affidavit in tune with the pleadings. In order to prove the case, plaintiffs would also rely on Exts.A1 and A2 documents. Ext.A1 was original of sale deed No.983/2001 of Kaduthuruthy SRO. Ext.A2 was the tax receipt dated 10.04.2019. Recitals in Ext.A1 would show that plaint schedule property belong to plaintiffs.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit was decreed as follows:- a.Defendants and men under them or their agents were restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from causing destruction to the boundaries of plaint schedule property, annexing any portion of it, causing damage in it, cut and destroy the trees standing on the eastern side of it and doing any act detrimental to the possessory rights of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule property. b.The plaintiffs were entitled to get cost from the defendants.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Vinodhini
- Party Age
- 64
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Anju
- Party Age
- 30
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Surendran
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rajamma
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Original of Sale deed No.983/2001 of Kaduthuruthy SRO, Tax receipt No.KL05050202586/2019 dated 10.04.2019 issued from village Office Kaduthuruthy.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- D.Subhash Chandran
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Feba Elma Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Johny K Manippadam
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants and their agents were restrained from causing destruction to the boundaries of plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
Defendants and men under them or their agents were restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from causing destruction to the boundaries of plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs were entitled to get costs from the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs were entitled to get cost from the defendants.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original of sale deed No.983/2001 of Kaduthuruthy SRO establishes plaintiffs' ownership of plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt dated 10.04.2019 provides evidence of tax payment on the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report identifies the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch filed by the Commissioner provides visual representation of the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Vaikom
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S.NO.
Case Code Year
2020