Case between Iynur Prakashan et al vs Shathrughanan et al regarding declaration and recovery of possession.

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Iynur Prakashan and others, are seeking a decree for declaration and recovery of possession of property that they claim rights over. The defendants, Shathrughanan and others, were set ex parte for not appearing in court.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won

Interim Order

The suit was dismissed by the court as it was found to be not maintainable due to failure to take delivery of property within the prescribed period and issues related to existing decree execution. No costs were awarded.

Judgment Favored

Defendant

Relief Granted

Case Type

Civil Suit

Final Judgment

No

The suit was dismissed by the court as it was found to be not maintainable due to failure to take delivery of property within the prescribed period and issues related to existing decree execution. No costs were awarded.

Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to take delivery of the property within the limitation period as mandated by law.

Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs failed to take delivery of the property within the limitation period as mandated by law.

Supporting Evidence

The plaintiffs ought to have taken delivery of the property allotted to them as per the exhibit A1 final decree within the period of limitation prescribed under Article 136 of the Limitation Act. The present suit is not maintainable in view of the section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Iynur Prakashan
Party Age: 70
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Lynur Vinod
Party Age: 45
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Praseetha
Party Age: 43
Relation: D/o

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Balakrishnan
Party Age: 55
Relation: S/o.

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Sarasa
Party Age: 50
Relation: D/o.

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Shathrughanan
Relation: S/o.

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Appu
Relation: S/o.

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Shakthidharan
Relation: S/o.

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Vijayan
Relation: S/o.

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Dharmajan
Relation: S/o.

Plaintiffs Documents

Certified copy of Final decree in FDIA 625/2005 in OS 728/1987.

Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Sri. Jayadeep.M
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: I.P Gopika
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery

Outcome: Refused

Description:

The plaintiffs sought a decree for recovery of possession of the property as per the final decree.

Evidence:

The suit is not maintainable in view of the section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit is liable to be dismissed and I do so.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Final Decree

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

This document is the final decree order in FDIA.625/2005 in OS 728/1987, which the plaintiffs are seeking to enforce for recovery of possession.

Reference:

Ext.A1

Case Classification