Case Summary
The plaintiffs, P.K Rajamma and others, are claiming their inherited property and seeking injunction against the defendants, V.A Subrahmonyan and others, who they allege have encroached on their property. The suit involves issues of property boundaries and access routes stemming from a partition deed.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
The boundaries of plaint A schedule and E schedule properties are fixed as per Ext C1(a) plan.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claims of encroachment into their property by the defendants. The suit was only partly decreed, establishing the boundaries of the properties as per the survey report.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of encroachment.
The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of encroachment.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of encroachment.
The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of encroachment.
Supporting Evidence
It is evident from the Ext C1 and C1(a) that the A schedule property is having an extent of 2 cents with well demarcated compound wall. Moreover, from the commission report there is no encroachments seen in E schedule pathway.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed partly as follows: 1) The boundaries of plaint A schedule and E schedule properties are fixed as per Ext C1(a) plan. 2) Ext C1(a) shall form part of decree. 3) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, defendants are entitled to get the costs of the proceedings from plaintiffs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- P.K Rajamma
- Party Age
- 67
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- P.K Narayanan
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- P.K Radha
- Party Age
- 59
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- P.K Janaki
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- P.K Aiyappan
- Party Age
- 56
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- V.A Subrahmonyan
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- V.A Lekshmi
- Party Age
- 80
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M.I Meenakshi
- Party Age
- 79
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Deepak Settu
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Muthu
- Party Age
- 45
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Document No.3258/1976 of SRO, Ernakulam, Tax paid receipt issued from Ernakulam Village Office, Copy of complaint filed before the Additional Tahasildar, Ernakulam by the second plaintiff, Copy of Ernakulam Village Officer's report, Copy of notice issued by the Taluk Surveyor, Kanayannur for measuring the property, Copy of Judgment in WP(c) no. 6811/2013(B) of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, Copy of application submitted by the second plaintiff before the Taluk Surveyor.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Mini Gangadharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Rajeesh K.G
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Partly Granted
Description:
The boundaries of the A schedule and E schedule properties are fixed.
Evidence:
Hence issue no 1 is answered accordingly.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Ext C1(a) shall form part of the decree.
Evidence:
Ext C1(a) shall form part of decree.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are entitled to get the costs of the proceedings from plaintiffs.
Evidence:
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, defendants are entitled to get the costs of the proceedings from plaintiffs.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document establishes the ownership rights of the plaintiffs over the A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves payment of tax related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Complaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Contains a complaint filed by the second plaintiff regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Village Officer’s Report
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Report concerning the condition and status of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
A notice issued by the Taluk Surveyor for measuring the property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Judgment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Judgment related to the property from the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Application
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
An application submitted by the second plaintiff for property measurement.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The report supports the plaintiffs' case regarding ownership and boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Illustrates the layout of the properties involved in the dispute.
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 P.K Rajamma et al vs V.A Subrahmonyan et al regarding fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between P.K Rajamma et al vs V.A Subrahmonyan et al regarding fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction.