Case Summary
Mary @ Mary Xavier and Augustine V. X. are the plaintiffs seeking partition and a permanent injunction against Joseph. V. X. and others. The case centers around property inherited from their late father, Xavier, with disputes over ownership and rights.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The Court dismissed the suit, concluding that the property in dispute, claimed as 'C' schedule, is not partible and thus not entitled to any share. Costs of the suit were awarded to the first defendant.
Key Reasoning:
The Court found insufficient proof regarding the existence of the plaint C schedule property.
The Court found insufficient proof regarding the existence of the plaint C schedule property.
Why Defendant Won:
The Court found insufficient proof regarding the existence of the plaint C schedule property.
The Court found insufficient proof regarding the existence of the plaint C schedule property.
Supporting Evidence
The very existence of the plaint C schedule property cannot be believed upon, going by the evidence brought on record.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed. The first defendant is entitled to the costs of the suit from the plaintiffs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mary @ Mary Xavier
- Party Age
- 83
- Relation
- W/o. late Xavier
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Augustine V. X.
- Party Age
- 56
- Relation
- S/o. Xavier
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Joseph. V. X.
- Party Age
- 59
- Relation
- S/o. Xavier
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Anna Cleetus
- Party Age
- 61
- Relation
- W/o. Cleetus
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mercy
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- W/o. Vincent Joseph
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Thankachan
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- S/o. Thomas
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Midhu Thankachan
- Party Age
- 26
- Relation
- D/o. Thankachan @ Thomas
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Settlement Deed No. 808/2001, Certified copy of Relinquishment Deed No. 1272/2017, Tax Receipt issued by Maradu Village.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Dinesh Mathew J Murikan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sangeetha K.S
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Mohammed Thayib N. M
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- S. Russel
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- V. R Arun
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Karol Mathews Sebastian Alencherry
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Daniel A.J
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a decree for partitioning the plaint C schedule property.
Evidence:
The plaint C schedule property is not partible as its existence could not be proved before the court.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
A permanent prohibitory injunction was sought to restrain the 1st defendant from covering the well and making constructions on plaint C schedule property.
Evidence:
An injunction could not be granted without proper proof that the well is located within the property of the plaintiffs.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The court considered this document to determine property settlement related to the first defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Relinquishment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was referenced to establish the relinquishment of rights by the other defendants in favor of the second plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The court referred to this receipt in discussions related to property ownership and tax responsibilities.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report was considered by the court during the examination of property claims made by the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.C1
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 Mary @ Mary Xavier et al vs Joseph. V. X. et al regarding partition and permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Mary @ Mary Xavier et al vs Joseph. V. X. et al regarding partition and permanent prohibitory injunction