Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
THAMPI S/o.late CHERIA – Appellant
Versus
MARY ABEL W/o.late ABEL – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.)
1. The appellants are the plaintiffs in a suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction. They are siblings. The permanent prohibitory injunction was claimed with respect to plaint A schedule item No.1 and 2 properties. Plaint A schedule item No.1 has 54 cents, and Plaint B schedule item No.2 has 38 cents of land. As per plaint allegations, plaint A schedule item No.1 property is situated on the eastern side, and plaint A schedule item No.2 property is situated on the western side of the plaint B schedule property. The plaintiffs' father, Cheria, derived the plaint schedule property as per Ext A2 document of the year 1112 ME. The 1st plaintiff is residing in the plaint A schedule property. The grandfather of the plaintiff, Ithak, had 1 Acre of 52 cents of land after excluding plaint schedule A property having 92 cents; the balance property having an extent of 60 cents, remained with the grandfather. The said 60 cents is plaint B schedule property. Plaint A and B schedule property are lying without any boundary. The plaintiffs also sought an injunction with respect to the right over the C schedule pathway on the ground that originally, there was a thond
In a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to adequately identify the properties in question, which they failed to do.
In a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to adequately identify the properties in question, which they failed to do.
Proper identification of properties based on respective title deeds supported by old survey plan and new survey plan is necessary to grant reliefs sought in a suit for injunction and counter claim fo....
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies equally on both parties, and proper documentation is essential to establish title and rights over the disputed property.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that in a suit for injunction, the court's principal obligation is to examine the plaintiff's lawful possession, and the identification of prope....
A plaintiff with clear title and possession can seek an injunction against interference, even in the face of disputed title, provided they substantiate their claims with appropriate evidence.
Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld; lack of evidence for obstruction and indeterminate property claims negate injunction request.
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....
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
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
