Case Summary
Job John P and Gincy George are the plaintiffs seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant Unnichan @ George. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant is encroaching upon their right of way, which is essential for vehicle access to their properties.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently establish their claim to the right of way. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.
Key Reasoning:
The evidence on record did not sufficiently establish any right, title or possession of the plaintiffs over the specified property.
The evidence on record did not sufficiently establish any right, title or possession of the plaintiffs over the specified property.
Why Defendant Won:
The evidence on record did not sufficiently establish any right, title or possession of the plaintiffs over the specified property.
The evidence on record did not sufficiently establish any right, title or possession of the plaintiffs over the specified property.
Supporting Evidence
It is true that the Ext A1 and Ext A3 document mentions about the existence of a 3.8 meter pathway to the respective properties of the plaintiffs. But said recitals can in no stretch of imagination be extended to the whole of the Plaint B schedule pathway, when the B schedule pathway has not been properly identified before the court by means of a local inspection and report.
Judgment Evidence:
In view of the discussions made above, I am of the view that there is no proper identification of the plaint B schedule pathway and that the evidence on record is not sufficient to establish any right, title or possession of the plaintiffs over plaint B schedule property. In such circumstances, Issues I to III are to be found against the plaintiffs and are found so.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Job John P
- Party Age
- 46
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Gincy George
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Unnichan @ George
- Party Age
- 80
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1266/2017, True copy of land tax receipt issued by Manakunnam Village Office, Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 2377/2013, True copy of land tax receipt issued by Manakunnam Village Office, Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 3212/1999.
Defendants Documents
Photograph (Subject to Proof), Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 2914/2003, Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 263/1996, Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1242/1996, Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 4212/2006, Certified copy of Document No. 2822/2008.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Saira Phiroz
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Dr. Mathew A Kuzhalnadan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Kuriakose Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sudeep Aravind Panicker
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant.
Evidence:
In view of the discussions made above, I am of the view that there is no proper identification of the plaint B schedule pathway and that the evidence on record is not sufficient to establish any right, title or possession of the plaintiffs over plaint B schedule property.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1266/2017 of SRO, Tripunithura.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of land tax receipt issued by Manakunnam Village Office.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 2377/2013 of SRO, Tripunithura.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of land tax receipt issued by Manakunnam Village Office.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 3212/1999 SRO, Tripunithura.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Photograph
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Photographs marked subject to proof.
Reference:
Ext.B1 to B7
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 2914/2003.
Reference:
Ext.B8
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 263/1996.
Reference:
Ext.B9
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1242/1996.
Reference:
Ext.B10
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 4212/2006.
Reference:
Ext.B11
Document Type:
Document
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy of Document No. 2822/2008.
Reference:
Ext.B12
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1266/2017.
Reference:
Ext.B13
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1666/1995.
Reference:
Ext.B14
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Job John P vs Unnichan @ George regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Job John P vs Unnichan @ George regarding permanent prohibitory injunction