Case Summary
The plaintiffs, the wife and children of the late Sri. P.C. Varghese, filed a suit against the defendant, Mohammed Shafeek, regarding the construction of a boundary wall and a prohibitory injunction. They claimed that the defendant had unlawfully demolished portions of the wall and encroached upon their property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to produce crucial documents to substantiate their claims. As a result, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief sought against the defendant.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to produce necessary documentary evidence to substantiate their claims.
The plaintiffs failed to produce necessary documentary evidence to substantiate their claims.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
Upon careful consideration of the pleadings and evidence, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to produce several crucial documents before the Court.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result; The suit is dismissed. No costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mariamma Varghese
- Party Age
- 87
- Relation
- W/o. Late P.C. Varghese
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Rosamma Varghese
- Party Age
- 61
- Relation
- D/o. Late P.C. Varghese
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Jacob Varghese
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- S/o. Late P. C. Varghese
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Parappallil Bijou Varghese
- Party Age
- 59
- Relation
- S/o. Late P. C. Varghese
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Dr. Roy Varghese
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o. Late P.C. Varghese
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mohammed Shafeek
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o. Late Mohammed Haneefa
Plaintiffs Documents
Original Power of attorney, Original Sale deed No. 4485/2009, Copy of the plaint in OS 1920/2019, Certified Copy of Sale deed No.1439/1975, Certified Copy of the final decree order (IA.No.1181/1988)
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.B.Vasudevan Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant regarding the disputed property.
Evidence:
In these circumstances, granting the relief sought in the present suit such as construction of a compound wall may result in conflicting findings and create legal uncertainty between the two proceedings.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought other reliefs related to the boundary wall and property rights.
Evidence:
In the light of the above discussions, this court is of the view that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for against the defendants.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The original Power of Attorney was produced by PW1 and marked as Ext.A1, showing representation of plaintiffs 1 to 4.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The original Sale Deed No. 4485 of 2009 was marked as Ext.A2, establishing ownership of the plaint 'A' schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Copy of the plaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
A copy of the plaint in OS 1920/2019 was marked as Ext.A3, showing ongoing litigation involving the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1439 of 1975 was produced as Ext.A4, relevant to property claims.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Final Decree Order
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The certified copy of the final decree order (IA.No.1181/1988) was marked as Ext.A5, relevant to the final decree regarding property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court marked Ext.C1 as a commission report providing insight into the property in dispute.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The survey plan prepared by Sri.Ramesh D.K. was marked as Ext.C1(a), providing details related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2020