Case Summary
The plaintiff, Alexander Mathew, is involved in a dispute concerning ownership and rights to an apartment complex against multiple defendants. The case revolves around a sale deed and potential illegal claims on property by the defendants.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction and costs of the suit
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court declared the sale deed executed by the defendants as null and void. The defendants were also restrained from claiming any rights over the property in question.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found that the plaintiff established ownership and possession through unchallenged evidence.
The court found that the plaintiff established ownership and possession through unchallenged evidence.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found that the plaintiff established ownership and possession through unchallenged evidence.
The court found that the plaintiff established ownership and possession through unchallenged evidence.
Supporting Evidence
The apprehension of plaintiff is well founded as he is in possession of plaint A schedule property. On perusal of the proof affidavit and documents produced, which remain unchallenged, I am satisfied that plaintiff has established his case.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed partly on the following terms. 1) It is hereby declared that sale deed No.3090/1997 of Edappally SRO executed by the 2nd to 4th defendants in favour of 1st defendant is null and void and the same is not binding on the plaintiff.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Alexander Mathew
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Abraham George
- Party Age
- 44
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- BPL US West Cellular Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mangalam Home and Resorts Pvt. Ltd
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mr. Sajan Varghese
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mr. Saji Varghese
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of Special Power of Attorney, Copy of Sale deed No.3484/1998 of SRO, Edapally, Copy of agreement of Construction between the plaintiff and the builders, Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the Mangalam Apartment Owners Welfare Association, Certified copy of Sale deed No.3090/1997 of SRO, Edapally
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K R Vinod
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M S Letha
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sree Rekha K S
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Aswin Raj
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The sale deed No.3090/1997 is declared null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.
Evidence:
It is hereby declared that sale deed No.3090/1997 of Edappally SRO executed by the 2nd to 4th defendants in favour of 1st defendant is null and void and the same is not binding on the plaintiff.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are restrained from claiming rights over the plaint B schedule property.
Evidence:
Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from claiming any right, title and possession of the plaint B schedule property.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are directed to pay costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
Evidence:
Defendants are directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiff.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the authority of Abraham George to represent the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This sale deed demonstrates the plaintiff's ownership of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Agreement for Construction
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This agreement outlines the terms under which the construction of the apartment complex was arranged.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Minutes of AGM
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document signifies the acknowledgment of ownership by the plaintiff and the association's decisions.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This deed illustrates the disputed transaction executed without the plaintiff's consent.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between Alexander Mathew vs BPL US West Cellular Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd, Mangalam Home and Resorts Pvt. Ltd, Mr. Sajan Varghese, Mr. Saji Varghese regarding declaration and injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Alexander Mathew vs BPL US West Cellular Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd, Mangalam Home and Resorts Pvt. Ltd, Mr. Sajan Varghese, Mr. Saji Varghese regarding declaration and injunction