Case Summary
Sreekala, the plaintiff, filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against Milton Leen Fernandez and his wife, Shynymole Varghese. The plaintiff claims unlawful interference by the defendants in her peaceful possession and enjoyment of her properties.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against trespass and demolition of properties
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed in favor of Sreekala, granting her a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. The counter-claim by Milton Leen Fernandez was dismissed.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff holds valid and indisputable legal title over the properties in question and has consistently demonstrated peaceful possession.
The plaintiff holds valid and indisputable legal title over the properties in question and has consistently demonstrated peaceful possession.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff holds valid and indisputable legal title over the properties in question and has consistently demonstrated peaceful possession.
The plaintiff holds valid and indisputable legal title over the properties in question and has consistently demonstrated peaceful possession.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence clearly indicates that the iron gate in question was installed by PW1 on her own property, specifically the ‘B’ schedule property and has remained in continuous existence for nearly 19 years without any lawful objection.
Judgment Evidence:
The suit is decreed as follows: Let the defendants, or any person claiming through them, be perpetually restrained from trespassing upon the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties or from demolishing the compound wall and the iron gate in the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sreekala
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Milton Leen Fernandez
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Shynymole Varghese
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified Copy of Sale Deed No. 5079/2007, Certified copy of the Sale Deed No. 2451/2011, Tax receipt, Certified copy of the Sale Deed No. 1089/1995
Defendants Documents
Power of Attorney, Certified copy of the Sale Deed No. 111/06, Certified copy of the Deed No. 1006/89, Certified copy of the Sale Deed No. 1089/95
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Pradeep Radhakrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. B. Vasudevan Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiff sought a decree to restrain the defendants from trespassing and damaging the properties.
Evidence:
The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to relief as prayed for, and the defendants are perpetually restrained from trespassing.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
The defendants sought a decree of mandatory injunction to remove the gate.
Evidence:
The counter-claim is dismissed as the defendants failed to prove entitlement to a mandatory injunction.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The Plaintiff presented this sale deed as evidence of their ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The Plaintiff presented this sale deed to support the claim regarding the acquisition of additional property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The Plaintiff provided this as proof of payment of land tax for the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document was referenced to establish a prior easement right related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The Plaintiff cited this deed to support their claim of a pathway.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Record of Measurement Sketch
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This sketch was used to demonstrate the layout of the properties and the pathway.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Document
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was mentioned in relation to property ownership disputes.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document was used to establish authority on behalf of the 1st Defendant in court.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This sale deed was used by the Defendant to support their claim regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Provided as evidence related to the history of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document was referenced to describe the rights associated with the property.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Photos
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The photos were submitted to demonstrate the alleged illegal gate installation.
Reference:
Ext.B5 Series
Document Type:
Receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This receipt was submitted as evidence related to expenses incurred.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2019