Case Summary
Nidhin B. Parappattu and others are seeking a temporary injunction against George Mathew concerning a boundary dispute over a property. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant is attempting to encroach on their land based on an erroneous survey plan.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Temporary injunction restraining the respondent from carrying out any construction or alterations along the northern boundary of the plaint B schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court partly allowed the petition, restraining the respondent from making any alterations to the disputed property boundary and directed both parties to maintain the status quo.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner established a prima facie case regarding potential irreparable injury due to the respondent's actions.
The petitioner established a prima facie case regarding potential irreparable injury due to the respondent's actions.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioner established a prima facie case regarding potential irreparable injury due to the respondent's actions.
The petitioner established a prima facie case regarding potential irreparable injury due to the respondent's actions.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner has made out a prima facie case. If the respondent is permitted to proceed with physical alterations at the disputed boundary, the petitioner may suffer irreparable prejudice, as any change to the topography may adversely affect the adjudication the suit.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, this petition is allowed in part as follows: 1. The respondent, his agents or any person acting under him, are hereby restrained from carrying out any construction or engaging in any activity that may alter the line or character of the northern boundary of the plaint B schedule property, particularly along its northern side.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nidhin B. Parappattu
- Party Age
- 31
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Naveen B. Parappattu
- Party Age
- 29
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nayan B. Parappattu
- Party Age
- 23
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- George Mathew
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of the partition deed No. 2277/14 of SRO, Kuruppumpady; Land tax receipt of thandapper No. 1917 of Kombanad village; Copy of partition deed No. 2324/2006 of SRO, Kuruppumpady.
Defendants Documents
Copy of the plaint in O.S 147/18 of Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor; Copy of the written statement in O.S 147/18 of Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- A Balagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- A.Rajagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M.N.Manmadan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sijo J. Kallidukkil
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Muhammed Suraj P.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P. G. Dileepkumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P.T. Geevarghese
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Rohan Roy
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Partly Granted
Description:
Temporary injunction restraining the respondent from carrying out any construction or altering the northern boundary of the plaint B schedule property.
Evidence:
The petitioner has made out a prima facie case...the prayer for an injunction restraining the respondent from making any construction over the entire extent of the property appears to be unjustified.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the partition deed No. 2277/14 of SRO, Kuruppumpady, establishing petitioner's ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Land tax receipt of thandapper No. 1917 of Kombanad village, supporting the petitioner's claim of possession.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of partition deed No. 2324/2006 of SRO, Kuruppumpady, relevant for property history.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of commission report in O.S 148/18 of Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor, used to show prior demarcation.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Objection
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of objection to the commission report in O.S 148/18 of Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor, providing context for disputes.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Plaint
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of the plaint in O.S 147/18 of Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor, detailing previous litigation.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Written Statement
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of the written statement in O.S 147/18 of Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor, relevant to the case arguments.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of commission report in I.A 2424/18 of Vacation Court, Ernakulam, supporting the respondent's claims.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Plaint
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of the plaint in O.S 148/18 of Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor, illustrating the overlapping claims.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Written Statement
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of the written statement in O.S 148/18 of Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor, countering the plaintiff's claims.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of commission report in I.A 2254/18 of Vacation Court, Ernakulam, providing evidence against the petitioner.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Additional Exhibit
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Includes various additional documents marked by the defendant that support their position in the case.
Reference:
Ext.B7 to Ext.B22
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
C1 Commission report that provides the court's observations regarding the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch submitted by Adv. Prasad M. that assists in visualizing the property dispute.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Nidhin B. Parappattu et al vs George Mathew regarding properties dispute
Case Code Year
Case between Nidhin B. Parappattu et al vs George Mathew regarding properties dispute