Case Summary
The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to prevent encroachment on a pathway they claim rights to. The court found that the plaintiffs did not establish their case warranting the relief sought.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to establish their claim over the pathway. The court concluded that the apprehension of encroachment was not proven.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
Supporting Evidence
The apprehension which is based on damages mentioned in plaint is not proved. Hence, this court is of the view that the plaintiffs had not established their case warranting the grant of relief sought for.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Saju
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Narayanan Nair
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Santhosh
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ajitha Kumari
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Gopakumar
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Sale Deed No.1465/2012, Tax Receipt, Copy of Sale Deed, Tax Receipt, Certificate (Sakshi Pathram)
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. S. Murukan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching upon the eastern side of the plaint C schedule property.
Evidence:
Hence, this court is of the view that the plaintiffs had not established their case warranting the grant of relief sought for.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Photocopy of sale deed cannot be relied on as it is secondary evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Photocopy of sale deed cannot be relied on as it is secondary evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Commission Report and Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
It is reported that the ingress and egress to the plaint A schedule property is through the plaint C schedule pathway.
Reference:
Ext.C1 and C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Saju et al vs Santhosh et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Saju et al vs Santhosh et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction