Case Summary
Mathew Varghese is the plaintiff claiming ownership of certain properties. The case involves a dispute over property titles and clearance of prior deeds against the defendants, who are initially attempting to contest the title.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
A decree is hereby passed declaring that the Sale Deed Nos. 1691/2011, 1692/2011 and 2867/2014 of SRO Edappally as null and void.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the disputed Sale Deeds as null and void. This judgment confirms the plaintiff's rightful ownership of the property in question.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established ownership through valid sale documents and the court found the defendants' claims to be baseless.
The plaintiff established ownership through valid sale documents and the court found the defendants' claims to be baseless.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff established ownership through valid sale documents and the court found the defendants' claims to be baseless.
The plaintiff established ownership through valid sale documents and the court found the defendants' claims to be baseless.
Supporting Evidence
The unrebutted oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1, A2, A5 to A12, A14 to 25 established his case as pleaded by him.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed as follows. A decree is hereby passed declaring that the Sale Deed Nos. 1691/2011, 1692/2011 and 2867/2014 of SRO Edappally as null and void.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mathew Varghese
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Shri. Nassar Cheriyil
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Smt. Kusumakumari Amma
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Sale Deed No.1377/2009, Certificate of Sale Re-confirmation No.571/2015, other relevant sale deeds.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The court declared Sale Deed Nos. 1691/2011, 1692/2011, and 2867/2014 as null and void.
Evidence:
A decree is hereby passed declaring that the Sale Deed Nos. 1691/2011, 1692/2011 and 2867/2014 of SRO Edappally as null and void and are not binding on the plaintiff.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to realize costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to realize costs of the suit from defendants and from their assets.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the plaintiff's ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Certificate of Sale Re-confirmation
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document further confirms the plaintiff's ownership following a Supreme Court order.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Copy of judgment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the plaintiff's claim regarding legal ownership established by the Supreme Court.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows earlier ownership transactions by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document validates the chain of title related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document indicates further ownership transfers related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is part of the contested sales and is referenced in the judgment.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes attempts to transfer rights over the property by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A11
Document Type:
Certified copy of Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is relevant to the contested transactions discussed in court.
Reference:
Ext.A12
Document Type:
Certified copy of Thandaper Account
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows the cancelled mutation in favor of the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A14
Document Type:
Certified copy of Thandaper Account
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows a related account that supports the plaintiff's claim.
Reference:
Ext.A15
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Judgment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document relates to a previous case that is part of the evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A16
Document Type:
Certified copy of written statement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides the plaintiff's position in the earlier related case.
Reference:
Ext.A23
Document Type:
Certified copy of amended written statement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document clarifies the plaintiff's claims during the trial.
Reference:
Ext.A24
Document Type:
Certified Copy of the plaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is the original claim filed by the plaintiff outlining the relief sought.
Reference:
Ext.A25
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 Mathew Varghese vs Shri. Nassar Cheriyil et al regarding declaration and consequential reliefs.
Case Code Year
Case between Mathew Varghese vs Shri. Nassar Cheriyil et al regarding declaration and consequential reliefs.