Case Summary
This case involves Chereekandy Gopinath as the plaintiff and Chereekandy Vijayan and Vipin as defendants. The plaintiff seeks to fix the boundaries of disputed properties due to alleged encroachments by the defendants.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Mandatory injunction to remove encroachments and a prohibitory injunction from trespassing into plaint A schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff, allowing him to fix the boundaries and ordering the defendants to remove encroachments.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The boundaries were not clearly demarcated, which necessitated the plaintiff's request for boundary fixation.
The boundaries were not clearly demarcated, which necessitated the plaintiff's request for boundary fixation.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The boundaries were not clearly demarcated, which necessitated the plaintiff's request for boundary fixation.
The boundaries were not clearly demarcated, which necessitated the plaintiff's request for boundary fixation.
Supporting Evidence
The defendants admitted in their written statement that there are no visible demarcating boundaries to separate plaint A and B schedule properties, which implies the necessity of fixing a boundary on that side.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1. That the BC line in Ext. C2(a) plan is fixed as the boundary between plaint A and B schedule property. 2. That the BE line in Ext. C2(a) plan is fixed as the boundary between plaint B and C schedule property. 3. The defendants are directed by a mandatory injunction to remove all the illegal constructions made by them by encroaching plaint A and C schedule properties within 2 months from today...
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Chereekandy Gopinath
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Chereekandy Vijayan
- Party Age
- 68
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vipin
- Party Age
- 32
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Partition deed No.3981/95, Basic land Tax receipt.
Defendants Documents
Building permit and plan, Building tax receipts, House warming letter.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.P.N.Sreenivasan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Anurudh.V.A
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P.S.Ramalingam
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
To remove all illegal constructions made by the defendants in the plaint A and C scheduled properties.
Evidence:
Hence I find that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction and prohibitory injunction as sought for.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Restraining the defendants from trespassing into plaint A scheduled property.
Evidence:
The defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into plaint A scheduled property.
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
That the BC line in Ext. C2(a) plan is fixed as the boundary between plaint A and B schedule property.
Evidence:
I find that the BC line in Ext. C2(a) plan has to be fixed as the boundary between plaint A and B schedule properties.
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
That the BE line in Ext. C2(a) plan is fixed as the boundary between plaint B and C schedule property.
Evidence:
I find that the BE line in Ext. C2(a) plan has to be fixed as a boundary line between plaint B and C schedule properties.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the partition of the properties in question between the plaintiff and defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document evidences the tax payment related to the property owned by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document is referenced to discuss the partition history and the extent of property allocated to the predecessor of the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Building Permit
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document shows the legal approval for the construction of a house by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document evidences tax payment for the building constructed by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Another document evidencing tax payment related to the defendant's property.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document further supports the tax payments related to the defendant's property.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Building Event
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document indicates the date of the house warming event for the property constructed by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type:
Survey Sketch
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This sketch is used for claiming the measurements of the property in dispute.
Reference:
Ext.B9
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The report details the inspection findings relevant to boundary disputes.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report serves as another inspection reference for fixing boundaries between the properties.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Boundary Dispute
Case Code
Case between Chereekandy Gopinath vs Chereekandy Vijayan et al regarding fixation of boundaries and injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Chereekandy Gopinath vs Chereekandy Vijayan et al regarding fixation of boundaries and injunction.