Case Summary
This case involves Radhakrishna Menon, the plaintiff, seeking an injunction against Radhamani Amma and others, the defendants, regarding the obstruction of access to his property. The plaintiff claims a right of easement for passage through the defendants' property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendants are restrained from obstructing the plaintiff's access and must remove the fencing obstructing the path.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting him the right to access the pathway identified in the sketch provided by the advocate commissioner. The defendants are ordered to remove any obstructions to this access.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court upheld the plaintiff's established right of easement by necessity over the pathway.
The court upheld the plaintiff's established right of easement by necessity over the pathway.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court upheld the plaintiff's established right of easement by necessity over the pathway.
The court upheld the plaintiff's established right of easement by necessity over the pathway.
Supporting Evidence
The Hon’ble District Court has made conclusive findings as to the right of easement by necessity of the plaintiff over the pathway situated in plaint B schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1. The defendants and persons claiming under them are restrained from obstructing the plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment of the road described in Ext.C3(a) sketch as 'b1' and 'b2'. 2. Defendants shall remove the fencing put up on the northern boundary of plaint A schedule property within one month in the absence of which the plaintiff can remove the same through the process of the court.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Radhakrishna Menon
- Party Age
- 64
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Smitha Venugopal
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Radhamani Amma
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Geetha Devi
- Party Age
- 47
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Madhusoothanan
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Jayaprakash
- Party Age
- 43
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Krishnakumar
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Settlement deed no. 2483/1977, Certified copy of the Partition deed no. 1112/54, Certified copy of partition deed no. 388/05, Certified copy of Sale deed no. 391/05, Certified copy of Sale deed no. 2406/05
Defendants Documents
Power of Attorney executed by the 4th defendant, Duplicate copy of Partition deed no. 388/05
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.V.Jayachandran
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Raju V Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.J.Harishankar
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Aiswariya V.R
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- T.B.Thankappan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- T.T.Harikumar
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendants and persons claiming under them are restrained from interfering or obstructing the plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment of the road described in Ext.C3(a) sketch as 'b' and 'b1'.
Evidence:
The defendants and persons claiming under them are restrained from the interfering all obstructing the plaintiff’s peaceful enjoyments of the road described in Ext.C3(a) sketch as “b1” and “b2”.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants shall remove the fencing put up on the northern boundary of plaint A schedule property within one month.
Evidence:
Defendants shall remove the fencing put up on the northern boundary of plaint A schedule property within one month in the absence of which the plaintiff can remove the same through the process of the court.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the suit.
Evidence:
Hence the issue as to costs in found in favour of the plaintiff.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Settlement deed no. 2483/1977 of SRO Ernakulam executed by Narayana Menon in favour of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the Partition deed no. 1112/54 of SRO Ernakulam.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of partition deed no. 388/05 of SRO Maradu.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale deed no. 391/05 of SRO Maradu.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale deed no. 2406/05 of SRO.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Power of Attorney executed by the 4th defendant in favour of his wife as document no. 135/04 of SRO, Maradu.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Duplicate copy of Partition deed no. 388/05 of SRO Maradu.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission Report filed by Adv. K.M.Vikas.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission Report filed by Adv. K.M.Vikas.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission Report filed by Adv. Albert Joseph Angamaly.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Sketch prepared by P.S.Sukumar, Private Secretary.
Reference:
Ext.C3(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 Radhakrishna Menon et al vs Radhamani Amma et al regarding injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Radhakrishna Menon et al vs Radhamani Amma et al regarding injunction