Case Summary
The plaintiffs, T.Sarojam and others, filed a suit against the defendants, Santhamma and others, seeking to fix boundaries and prevent the defendants from trespassing on their property. The plaintiffs' predecessor had ownership of the property, but the defendants attempted to create rights over it.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The plaintiffs are permitted to put up boundary wall in the northern, western and eastern side of plaint schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, permitting them to fix the boundaries of their property and granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. The defendants were prevented from trespassing or encroaching into the plaintiffs' property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs established ownership and possession over the property through previous judgments and demonstrated ongoing trespass attempts by the defendants.
The plaintiffs established ownership and possession over the property through previous judgments and demonstrated ongoing trespass attempts by the defendants.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs established ownership and possession over the property through previous judgments and demonstrated ongoing trespass attempts by the defendants.
The plaintiffs established ownership and possession over the property through previous judgments and demonstrated ongoing trespass attempts by the defendants.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs are not estopped from filing this suit as contended by defendants and this suit is not barred by principle of resjudicata as the matter in dispute in both suits as different.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs as follows: The plaintiffs are permitted to put up boundary wall in the northern, western and eastern side of plaint schedule property in 'C D', 'A D' and 'B C' lines shown in Ext. C1 (a) plan respectively. The defendants are hereby restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or committing waste in it or from alienating the defendants’ property by including plaint scheduled property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- T.Sarojam
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Chinchumol
- Party Age
- 24
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Vinulal
- Party Age
- 21
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Binu.J.
- Party Age
- 33
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Adriel
- Party Age
- 5
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Santhamma
- Party Age
- 62
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sivadasan
- Party Age
- 52
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Suresh
- Party Age
- 32
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Common Judgment in OS.No.785/1997 and OS.961/1997, Certified copy of decree in OS 785/1997 and OS 961/1997, Copy of plaint in OS 961/1997, Certified copy of Partition deed No. 1238/1980.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Punchakkari. G. Raveendran Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. K. Jayachandran
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing or encroaching into plaint schedule properties.
Evidence:
The unchallenged uncorroborated unrebutted testimony of PW1 seems proved and can be taken into account for decreeing the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or from committing waste in it or from alienating the defendants’ property by including the plaint scheduled property.
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Fixation and putting up boundaries in the eastern, northern, and western sides of the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs as follows: 1. The northern boundary of the plaint schedule property is fixed up as shown in 'C D' line in Ext.C1 (a) plan.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Common Judgment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A1 is the certified copy of Common Judgment in OS.No.785/1997 and OS.961/1997 dated 24.07.1999 of Honorable Principal Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Decree
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A2 is the certified copy of decree in OS 785/1997 and OS.961/1997 dated 24.07.1999 of Honorable Principal Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Plaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A3 is copy of plaint in OS 961/1997.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A4 is a certified copy of Partition deed No. 1238/1980 dated 19.04.1980.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Commission report and plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Exhibit C1 and C1(a) are the Commission Report and Plan.
Reference:
Ext.C1
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
2014