Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A. Abdul Hakhim, J.
Pramod.V – Petitioner
Versus
Vimala.V – Respondent
RSA NO. 219 OF 2024
Decided On : 14-11-2024
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 39 - Mandatory injunction - Suit for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for vacating the premises - The defendant's claim of co-ownership and adverse possession was not substantiated - The Trial Court's discretion in granting the injunction was justified based on the evidence presented. (Paras 8, 16, 20)
(B) Evidence - The defendant's failure to produce documents to support his claims and the inconsistencies in his statements were noted - The court emphasized the importance of consistent pleadings and evidence in property disputes. (Paras 14, 19)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction against the defendant, who was occupying the plaint schedule property, claiming it was her mother's Tharawad property. The defendant contended he had rights over the property due to his familial ties and prior occupation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the defendant's occupation was permissive and that he failed to prove any exclusive rights or adverse possession over the property.
Issues: The main issues included the identity of the plaint schedule property and the defendant's claim of co-ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the defendant's claims were not supported by evidence, and the plaintiff was justified in seeking a mandatory injunction to reclaim her property.
Result: Regular Second Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.A. Abdul Hakhim, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal is of the year 2024. When this matter came up before this Court, the learned counsel for the respondent pressed for an early hearing, stating that the respondent is an aged lady who is in emergent requirement of the residential building in the plaint schedule property and that though she obtained favourable orders from the Maintenance Tribunal directing the defendant to vacate the premises, the same was set aside by this Court in a Writ Petition on technical grounds directing the parties to work out the remedies in this proceedings. The Counsel for the respondent also submitted that he is ready for final hearing. Since the Trial Court records were available, this Regular Second Appeal is heard on a priority basis.
2. The defendant in O.S.No.116/2020 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Thalassery, is the appellant. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for mandatory injunction, prohibitory injunction, and recovery of damages. The Trial Court decreed the suit granting mandatory injunction and prohibitory injunction and denying the recovery of damages. The defendant filed A.S.No.53/2022 before the First Appellate Court, and the First Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal, and hence this Regular Second Appeal is filed.
3. This Court admitted this Appeal on the following substantial question of law:
4. The plaint schedule property has an extent of 16 cents, and the residential building No.9/519 therein. The suit was filed seeking a mandatory injunction against the defendant to vacate the house in the plaint schedule property, seeking a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant and his men from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and directing the defendant to pay damages at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to the plaintiff from 15.12.2019.
5. As per the Plaint allegations the plaint schedule property was the Tharawad property of plaintiff's mother Chirutha and the Tharawad property was partitioned as per Ext.A1 Registered Partition Deed dated 30.01.1964. The plaint schedule property with larger extent was allotted to the share of the plaintiff's mother Chirutha and her sister Devu. Chirutha and Devu partitioned the property as per Ext.A2 Partition Deed dated 20.08.1980, in which 16 cents was allotted to the share of Chirutha, and 16 cents on the western side was allotted to Devu. There was an old small house which was in a dilapidated condition and the said house was not included in the partition. Both Chirutha and Devu decided to keep the house structure as common for the purpose to continue their residence till completion of their separate houses in their separate shares. Both constructed houses in their respective shares and started living separately. The old common house was neglected by both and fell down due to old-age. After the death of Chirutha, the plaint schedule property and house therein were inherited by her children, Prasanna and the plaintiff. The plaint schedule property and the house were managed by the plaintiff for and on behalf of Prasanna also. After the death of Chirutha, there was nobody to reside in the house, and the house was closed for a long period. The defendant is the son of Devu. On account of a clash in his family, the defendant requested the plaintiff for permission to stay in the house temporarily until he found a separate resident of his own. The plaintiff permitted the defendant to stay in the house with his wife and children without paying any kind of consideration but on condition that he shall vacate the premises
AI
The court upheld the plaintiff's right to seek a mandatory injunction against the defendant, emphasizing the necessity of consistent evidence and pleadings in property disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession follows title, and in cases of vacant property, the person able to establish title is considered to be in possession. The court....
Mandatory injunctions require clear evidence of possession rights; mere claims of permissive possession undermined by admissions establishing tenant status.
Domestic violence - While the DV Act is a social welfare legislation granting protection to women who are victims of domestic violence, every dispute amongst family members cannot be converted into a....
In property disputes, proof of ownership and lawful possession must be established; mere claims without supporting evidence lead to dismissal of injunction requests.
A plaintiff can obtain a permanent injunction against defendants interfering with her possession if exclusive ownership is established through revenue records, even amidst claims of co-ownership.
In a suit for injunction, reliance must be placed on evidence of possession rather than solely on ownership titles. Courts must establish actual possession before granting injunctions.
(1) Permanent Injunction – In a suit for permanent injunction, Court is not required to conclusively determine or declare title to property – De jure possession has to be established on the basis of ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
