Case Summary
The plaintiff, Narayanan G, claims a right to use a pathway for access to his property, which he alleges was obstructed by the defendants who put up a structure. The defendants deny any wrongdoing and assert their legal rights over the pathway.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Partial
Relief Granted
Defendants restrained from increasing height of the plaint B schedule pathway without consent of the plaintiff.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found the plaintiff's claims regarding the obstructed pathway unfounded and has ordered a limited prohibitory injunction to prevent unnecessary changes to the pathway.
Key Reasoning:
Defendants can be prevented from increasing the height of the pathway to avoid potential water logging issues for the plaintiff.
Defendants can be prevented from increasing the height of the pathway to avoid potential water logging issues for the plaintiff.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Defendants can be prevented from increasing the height of the pathway to avoid potential water logging issues for the plaintiff.
Defendants can be prevented from increasing the height of the pathway to avoid potential water logging issues for the plaintiff.
Supporting Evidence
I am of the opinion that if the height of the plaint B schedule pathway is increased, in the given circumstances as made out in the evidence on record, it might prove to the detriment of the plaintiff.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, in view of the discussion made above, the suit is partly decreed as follows: The defendants, their successors and men or agents acting under the direction of the defendants/their successors are restrained by way of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from increasing height of the plaint B schedule pathway, in a manner affecting the status quo in existence with respect to the plaint B schedule pathway, without the consent of the plaintiff / his successors.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Narayanan G
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- C.V Rajesh
- Party Age
- 51
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Anitha
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ramesh Kadamannaya
- Party Age
- 50
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Deed bearing No. 764/2010
Defendants Documents
Certified copies of Sale Deed bearing No. 780/2015, 2811/2010, 2204/2013, 345/2010, Partition Deed bearing No. 346/2010
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- T.B Thankappan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- T.T Harikumar
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- A. Gopalakrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- C. Devanand
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Aparna P Menon
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Akhil George
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- R. Ravikumar
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Anjali G. Krishnan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Arjun S Menon
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Soumya Lakshmi S
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought an order for the removal of unauthorized structures and restoration of the pathway.
Evidence:
As the plaintiff has failed to establish a case of his exclusive right over the plaint B schedule pathway, on account of the answer to issue number I, I am of the opinion that mandatory injunctions as sought for cannot be granted.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
A decree to prevent the defendants from increasing the height of the B schedule pathway without consent.
Evidence:
I am of the opinion that a permanent prohibitory injunction of a limited or modified nature can be granted to the plaintiff.
Relief Type:
Cost
Outcome:
Not Decided
Description:
The parties were directed to suffer their respective costs to the suit.
Evidence:
The parties are directed to suffer the respective costs to the suit.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document indicates the settlement of the property to the plaintiff by his father.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document pertains to the sale of property and supports the defendants' claim.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document relates to the sale of property linked to the defendants' ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document provides evidence of the defendants' property claims.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document shows the historical sale that impacts the case details.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document validates the boundaries of the defendants' claims.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report was referenced to describe the levels of the properties involved.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This sketch is an accompanying document to the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
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 Narayanan G vs C.V Rajesh et al regarding mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Narayanan G vs C.V Rajesh et al regarding mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction