Case Summary
The plaintiff, Bindu, seeks to amend her suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, Manikandan, to include a declaration of easement by prescription and a mandatory injunction for removal of a boundary wall obstructing a pathway. The case revolves around the validity of the amendment and whether it is barred by limitation.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court has dismissed the petition for amendment of the plaint on the grounds that the prayer for mandatory injunction is time-barred. Both parties must bear their respective costs.
Key Reasoning:
The petition was dismissed because it was deemed time-barred according to the Limitation Act.
The petition was dismissed because it was deemed time-barred according to the Limitation Act.
Why Defendant Won:
The petition was dismissed because it was deemed time-barred according to the Limitation Act.
The petition was dismissed because it was deemed time-barred according to the Limitation Act.
Supporting Evidence
The present petition is filed only on 05.12.2019. So that is beyond the limitation period. So the prayer for mandatory injunction is a time barred one.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Bindu
- Party Age
- 41
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Manikandan
- Party Age
- 56
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Lali Sunil
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. V. Ramesh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Prayer for mandatory injunction to remove the boundary wall constructed in the plaint B schedule pathway.
Evidence:
So the present application filed for incorporating that prayer can't be entertained. Moreover, it is argued that the plaint B schedule pathway is purchased by the petitioner. Then also the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that easement and ownership can't go together.
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Prayer for declaration of easement by prescription.
Evidence:
Here a fresh suit for mandatory injunction is barred by limitation.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Commissioner Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The advocate commissioner visited the spot and filed a report describing the age of the plaint B schedule pathway and the acts committed by the respondent in the said pathway.
Reference:
null
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiffs Court, Varkala
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Bindu vs Manikandan regarding amendment to a permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Bindu vs Manikandan regarding amendment to a permanent prohibitory injunction.