Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
Devarajan – Appellant
Versus
Sajeshkumar – Respondent
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 weste
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.
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.
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.
A suit for injunction can be maintained without a declaration of title if the plaintiff can establish possession, and the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's finding of possession.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that ownership of property and entitlement to relief are determined based on the evidence of ownership and possession presented by the parties.
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
