Case Summary
Syed Mohammed Sadik and Suresh Babu. R.C are involved in two interconnected suits regarding property disputes over a pathway. The plaintiff claims that the defendant illegally encroached upon the pathway, reducing its width.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed OS.No.138/2019 and decreed OS.No.1863/2018, restraining the defendants from encroaching upon the plaintiff's property and preserving the status quo.
Key Reasoning:
The defendant successfully established entitlement to a permanent injunction based on evidence of encroachment and protection of property rights.
The defendant successfully established entitlement to a permanent injunction based on evidence of encroachment and protection of property rights.
Why Defendant Won:
The defendant successfully established entitlement to a permanent injunction based on evidence of encroachment and protection of property rights.
The defendant successfully established entitlement to a permanent injunction based on evidence of encroachment and protection of property rights.
Supporting Evidence
DW1 has demonstrated a prima facie case by showing that PW1 is attempting to demolish the existing compound wall and encroach upon the plaint 'B' schedule pathway.
Judgment Evidence:
OS.No.138/2019 stands dismissed. OS.No.1863/2018 is decreed as follows: Let defendants 1 and 2 be perpetually restrained from trespassing onto the plaint 'A' schedule property or from encroaching upon any portion of the same or from widening the plaint 'B' schedule pathway.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Syed Mohammed Sadik
- Party Age
- 56
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Suresh Babu. R.C
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Original Sale deed No. 2723/2017, Tax receipt, Plan
Defendants Documents
Original Sale deed No. 2183/2002, Attested copy of Sale deed No. 3023/2007, Tax receipt
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Sreevaraham. G. Satheesh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Archana. R.S
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. G.S. Sanal Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff requested a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.
Evidence:
The relief of a mandatory injunction and permanent prohibitory injunction cannot be granted in favour of PW1.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to demolish the wall and restore the pathway.
Evidence:
The plaintiff has failed to provide clear, convincing evidence or detailed pleadings, which are essential for the court to consider an order for the restoration of plaint ‘C’ schedule pathway.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendant was granted a decree of permanent injunction against the plaintiff.
Evidence:
Given these factors, DW1 has proven their entitlement to get a permanent injunction.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the plaintiff's ownership of the plaint 'A' schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the plaintiff's ownership by showing tax payments for the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document illustrates the layout and boundaries related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document is relevant to the defendant's claim of ownership over the pathway described in the suit.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document serves as proof of the defendant's acquisition of property relevant to the dispute.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document shows that the defendant has been paying taxes for the property.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report provides findings relevant to the physical condition of the property in dispute.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This sketch is related to the commission report showing the layout.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report details further findings related to the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This sketch is complementary to the commission report detailed in Ext.C2.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2019