Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Santhosh and Ratheesh P. Santhosh, are seeking to fix the boundary regarding their property against the defendant, Prasanna, who is related to the first plaintiff. The case involves allegations of attempted trespassing and boundary destruction.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is dismissed with costs in favor of the defendant as the court found that the boundary already exists and there was no substantial evidence to support the plaintiffs' claims.
Key Reasoning:
The court concluded that the existing boundaries between the properties are clear and do not require fixation.
The court concluded that the existing boundaries between the properties are clear and do not require fixation.
Why Defendant Won:
The court concluded that the existing boundaries between the properties are clear and do not require fixation.
The court concluded that the existing boundaries between the properties are clear and do not require fixation.
Supporting Evidence
It has come out that there exists a clear boundary distinctly demarcating the properties of both parties, and there is no scope for the fixation of the boundary, as the boundary already exists.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Santhosh
- Party Age
- 56
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Ratheesh P. Santhosh
- Party Age
- 29
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Prasanna
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Partition Deed No. 1603/84, Certified copy of Gift Deed No. 755/2014, Certified copy of Correction Deed No. 702/1/2016, Letter from Taluk Office Meenachil, Certified copy of Survey Plan from Village Office, Land Revenue Tax Receipts.
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 2422/1961.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Mani Cyriac
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Muhammed Shefeek
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Remya R
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff requested to restrain the defendant from trespassing upon the plaint schedule No. 1 property.
Evidence:
The apprehension of the plaintiffs for allowing the injunction is not reasonable, and no order can be passed against the defendant in this regard.
Relief Type:
Fixation of Boundary
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought fixation of the boundary between the plaint schedule No. 1 property and plaint schedule No. 2 property.
Evidence:
There exists a clear boundary distinctly demarcating the properties of both parties, and there is no scope for the fixation of the boundary, as the boundary already exists.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the title to the plaint schedule number 1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Gift Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows the transfer of property to the 2nd plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Correction Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document corrects previous records related to the plaint schedule number 1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Letter from Taluk Office
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This letter indicates the attempts made by the plaintiff to fix the boundary.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides a layout of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Land Revenue Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document verifies the payment of land revenue by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Land Revenue Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document verifies another payment of land revenue by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
BTR Copy
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the plaintiffs' ownership claims regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
BTR Copy
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is a repeated entry which supports the claim over the property.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows a prior transaction relevant to the ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document establishes the defendant's claim over the property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Pala
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Santhosh vs Prasanna regarding fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Santhosh vs Prasanna regarding fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction.