Case Summary
Sheeba Kottiyedath filed a suit against K.Vipin Kumar and Divya.K.K. to fix the boundaries between her property and that of the defendants. The defendants argued that the suit was barred by res judicata due to a previous decree in a related case.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit stating it lacked a necessary cause of action for fixation of boundaries, and the issue of possession was already settled in favor of the defendants in a previous case.
Key Reasoning:
The existence of visible boundaries was established, making the demand for boundary fixation unnecessary.
The existence of visible boundaries was established, making the demand for boundary fixation unnecessary.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The existence of visible demarcating boundaries on all sides was confirmed, indicating no need for fixation.
Judgment Evidence:
In the results, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sheeba Kottiyedath
- Party Age
- 43
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- K.Vipin Kumar
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Divya.K.K.
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of jenmam assignment deed No.403/2004, Certified copy of Release deed No.2062/1963, Copy of Gift deed No.2132/2017, Letter received from District Collector Kozhikode, Land tax receipt issued by Puthiyangadi Village office in the name of Sheeba.K
Defendants Documents
Copy of Commission report with plan in OS 330/2013, Certified copy of judgment in OS 330/2018, Certified copy of Decree in OS 330/18
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt..Mini Dinesh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.K.P.Gangadharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Nithin Sathyendran
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a declaration to fix the boundaries between the A and B schedule properties.
Evidence:
The issues were answered against the plaintiffs.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought to remove the obstruction of the pathway leading to her property.
Evidence:
The suit is dismissed with costs.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Jenmam assignment deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the ownership of the A schedule property by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Release deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the plaintiff's claim regarding the ownership of her property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Gift Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows the transfer of property to Divya.K.K which relates to the boundary issue in the suit.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Location certificate with Plan
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides details about the plaintiff's property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.A3(a)
Document Type:
Letter received from District Collector
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document pertains to the complaint filed by the defendants and is relevant to the case's background.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document indicates the payment of land tax related to the plaintiff's property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Commission Report with Plan
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document provides evidence of the boundary and possession findings relevant to the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Judgment
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This judgment forms the basis for the defendants' claim of ownership over the contested property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Certified copy of decree
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This decree finalizes the defendants' rights concerning the property which is crucial to the case.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Commission Reports and Plans
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
These documents are prepared to ascertain the property boundaries and are essential for understanding the suit's context.
Reference:
Ext.C1 to C3
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Testimonies from witnesses examined during the case provided verbal evidence pertinent to claims.
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Sheeba Kottiyedath vs K.Vipin Kumar et al regarding fixation of boundary
Case Code Year
Case between Sheeba Kottiyedath vs K.Vipin Kumar et al regarding fixation of boundary