Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
Devarajan - Appellant
Versus
Sajeshkumar - Respondents
RSA No. 382 of 2015
Decided on : 11-02-2025
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Sections relevant to injunctions - Permanent prohibitory injunction sought in two suits regarding property disputes - The plaintiff in O.S No. 283/2006 was granted an injunction against the defendants, while the injunction for plaint B schedule property was denied as it was government land. (Paras 7, 11, 21)
(B) Burden of proof - In property disputes, both parties bear the burden of proving their claims, and the plaintiff's title must be established over the disputed property. (Paras 15, 19)
(C) Evidence - The reliance on survey reports and title deeds must be substantiated with proper documentation and identification of property. (Paras 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed O.S No. 283/2006 seeking an injunction against the defendants who obstructed his use of property, while the defendants claimed rights over a portion of the same property. O.S No. 80/2007 was filed by the first defendant seeking an injunction over the disputed land.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court granted an injunction in favor of the plaintiff in O.S No. 283/2006 but denied it for the government land in plaint B schedule. The First Appellate Court upheld these findings.
Issues: The court considered whether the injunctions were justified and the validity of the claims over the disputed property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff proved his title over the property, while the defendant failed to establish a consistent claim or title.
Result: Regular Second Appeals dismissed with clarification on the scope of the injunction.
JUDGMENT :
[RSA Nos.382/2015, 379/2015]
1. Since both these appeals arise from two suits-OS.No.283/2006 and O.S.NO.80/2007 which were disposed of by a common judgment, these appeals are also disposed by a common judgment.
2. Both the suits were for permanent prohibitory injunction. O.S 283/2006 is filed by the plaintiff against two defendants who are brothers. O.S No. 80/2007 is filed by the first defendant in O.S No. 283/2006 against the plaintiff in O.S No.283/2006.
3. O.S No. 283/2006 is filed seeking injunction with respect to Plaint A and B schedule properties. Plaint A schedule property belong to the plaintiff as per Ext.A1 sale deed. Plaint B schedule property is a Kayal Puramboke lying on the western side of the Plaint A Schedule property. The plaintiff initiated steps before the government for the assignment of Plaint B schedule puramboke. The cause of action alleged is that when the plaintiff was levelling the sand in plaint A schedule property, the defendants trespassed and obstructed the same.
4. The first defendant opposed the suit prayers by filing the written statement contending that the description of plaint A schedule property is not correct. 10 cents forming the western portion of plaint A schedule was in the possession of the father of defendant Kesavan and 20 cents on its east was in the possession of One Narayana Kurup and Sankara Kurup and after their death, properties devolved on their respective legal heirs. Large extent including the said 30 cents belonged to Mararikulam Devaswom. The said 30 cents along with other properties were transferred to Melepatt family by a Venpattom deed. There was a partition in Melepatt family as per Ext.B3 Partition deed of 1117 M.E and in the said deed, the aforesaid 30 cents was set apart to the share of Narayana Kurup and Sankara Kurup. The western 10 cents of the 30 cents was agreed to be sold to the father of the defendants, Kesavan and thus Kesavan came into possession of the said 10 cents. Neither Sankara Kurup nor Kesavan obtained purchase certificate for this property from Land Tribunal. The plaintiff or his relatives or his predecessors have not obtained any right or possession over this property. Thus, the pleadings in the Written Statement of the 1st respondent would reveal that he is claiming right over 10 cents of land forming the western part of the plaint A schedule property in OS No. 283/2006.
5. O.S No. 80/2007 was filed by the plaintiff therein, who was the defendant in OS No. 283/2006, praying for permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the aforesaid 10 cents of land forming the western part of Plaint A schedule property in O.S No. 283/2006. He claimed the said 10 cents of land on the basis of Ext.B1 Sale Deed of the year 2006.
6. The defendant therein opposed the suit prayers contending that Ext.B1 document is a void document. The property covered under Ext.B1 is not in existence. The persons who have executed Ext.B1 have no right to execute the said document.
7. The Trial Court dismissed O.S NO.80/2007 and partly decreed O.S No.283/2006 passing a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants restraining them from trespassing into plaint A schedule property and from committing any waster or mischief therein. The prayer for injunction with respect to plaint B schedule property was refused on the ground that plaint B schedule property is a puramboke land belonging to the Government and that the Government is not a party.
8. The defendants in O.S No. 283/2006 filed A.S No. 83/2009 and the plaintiff in O.S No. 80/2007 filed A.S No.82/2009 before the First Appellate Court challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed both the appeals confirming the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court.
9. I heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri J. Om Prakash, and the learned counsel for the respondent, Sri. G.P. Shinod.
10. Hereafter the parties are referred according to thei
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.
Ownership claims require clear documentary evidence; failure to establish title results in denial of relief.
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 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.
A permanent injunction suit is not maintainable without a prior declaration of title when there is a dispute regarding ownership.
The courts erred in dismissing the plaintiff's suit without addressing critical issues of property title and possession, validating his claim for a declaratory relief against unauthorized deeds.
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.
An appeal must arise from a substantial question of law; findings on evidence appreciation do not warrant re-evaluation in absence of clear legal error.
Possession is critical for granting permanent injunctions even in the presence of title disputes, as affirmed by the Courts' findings regarding the plaintiff's established possession.
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
