Case Summary
The plaintiff, Parakkal Neseena, is filing a suit for the fixation of boundaries of her property against multiple defendants who have properties adjacent to hers. The plaintiff asserts her ownership and seeks court intervention due to delays from the defendants regarding the construction of a boundary wall.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The northern boundary between the plaint A schedule property and the plaint B schedule property is fixed at line ‘FG’ and the western boundary at line ‘ADG’. Costs of the proceedings to be paid by the defendants.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, fixing the boundaries between the plaint A and B schedule properties as requested. The defendants were ordered to pay costs of the proceedings to the plaintiff.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff proved her ownership and possession through adequate evidence and documents.
The plaintiff proved her ownership and possession through adequate evidence and documents.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff proved her ownership and possession through adequate evidence and documents.
The plaintiff proved her ownership and possession through adequate evidence and documents.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff when examined as PW1 has deposed in tune with the plaint averments. She has produced exhibit A1 certified copy of deed No.1518/2007 of SRO Meenchantha, Exhibit A2 certified copy of purchase certificate and exhibit A3 land tax receipt which proves her ownership and possession over the Plaint A Schedule Property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1. The northern boundary between the plaint A schedule property and the plaint B schedule property is fixed at line ‘FG’ as depicted in the exhibit C1(b) plan. 2. The western boundary between the plaint A schedule property and the plaint B schedule property is fixed at line ‘ADG’ as depicted in the exhibit C1(b) plan.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Parakkal Neseena
- Party Age
- 36
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- V. P. Nazar
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ashraf
- Party Age
- 49
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Muhammed Rafi
- Party Age
- 41
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mujeeb
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sabira
- Party Age
- 43
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Deed No.1518/2007, Certified copy of purchase certificate, Land Tax receipt
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.P.Rajmohan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.K.M.Parameswaran
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Vinod Singh Cheriyan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt.Saranya.O
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- T.M.Khalid
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Shynu
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Seema Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Fixation of boundaries between the plaint A schedule property and the plaint B schedule property.
Evidence:
The suit is decreed as follows: 1. The northern boundary between the plaint A schedule property and the plaint B schedule property is fixed at line ‘FG’ as depicted in the exhibit C1(b) plan.
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Fixation of western boundary between the plaint A schedule property and the plaint B schedule property.
Evidence:
2. The western boundary between the plaint A schedule property and the plaint B schedule property is fixed at line ‘ADG’ as depicted in the exhibit C1(b) plan.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Order for the defendants to pay costs of the proceedings to the plaintiff.
Evidence:
3. The defendants shall also pay costs of the proceedings to the plaintiff.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Title deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of deed No.1518/2007 of SRO Meenchantha proving ownership and possession over the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Purchase Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of purchase certificate dated 06.10.2020 supporting the plaintiff's ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Land tax receipt dated 20.02.2015 supporting the plaintiff's ownership and possession.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Commissioner Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Report by the Advocate Commissioner verifying the plaintiff's possession and detailing boundary locations.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Sketch produced by the Advocate Commissioner as part of the evidence.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Survey plan produced by the Advocate Commissioner depicting the boundaries of the properties.
Reference:
Ext.C1(b)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Parakkal Neseena vs V. P. Nazar et al regarding fixation of boundaries of the plaint schedule properties.
Case Code Year
Case between Parakkal Neseena vs V. P. Nazar et al regarding fixation of boundaries of the plaint schedule properties.