BEFORE THE HON’BLE MUNSIFF’S COURT AT ERNAKULAM

O. S. No. of 2022

Padmanabhan | Plaintiff

Vs.

George & others | Defendants

Plaintiff :

1. Padmanabhan, S/o late Kochu Pillai, aged 71,

Thekkedath Parambu, Vaduthala, Kochi. 682 023

Vs.

Defendants :-

1. George Pudumana, S/o Pathrose, Pudumana House,

aged 81, Chandy Road,Vaduthala, Kochi – 682 023.

2. P.G. Sunil, S/o George, Pudumana House, aged 43,

Chandy Road, Vaduthala, Kochi – 682 023.

3. Stansilaus T.V, S/o Varghese, aged57, Thekumtala House,

Thanal 77, Chandy Road, Vaduthala, Kochi – 682 023

4. Antony Shibu, S/o K.V. George, aged 44 residing at

Kolaparambil House, Thanal 73. Chandy Road,
Vaduthala, Kochi – 682 023

5. Varghese Joseph, S/o Joseph, aged 67, residing at Poothampilly House,

East of Pump House, Toll Gate Road, Vadhuthala Pin-682023.

6. T.V. Raphel S/o Varghese, aged 60, ThekumthalaHouse,

Chandy Road, Vaduthala, Kochi – 682 023

7. James Roy .K.A. S/o Antony K.T, aged48, Kalluveettil House,

Chandy Road, Vaduthala, Kochi – 682 023.

8. Rajesh K.S, S/o Sreedharan, aged 43, Kannath House,

Chandy Road, Vaduthala, Kochi – 682 023.

9. Corporation of cochin, Park Avenue Road,

Ernakulam, rep by its Secretary

Plaint filed under section 26 read with Order VII Rule I of the Code of Civil
Procedure
 2

The addresses of the plaintiffs are as stated as above. The court notices
to the plaintiffs may be served on their counsel K.B Rajesh & Ashwathy
Jayachandran, M/s. Brahmanandan & Associates, Flower Junction, T.D. Road,
Ernakulam. The addresses of the defendants are as stated above.
The summons and court notices etc of the defendants may be served on
the address shown above or their counsel engaged if any.

Plaintiff begs to submit as follows:-

1.The plaintiff is an auto rickshaw Driver residing in the address shown

above. The defendants 1 to 8 are neighboring owners of the plaintiff who are
illegally attempting to trespass into the plaint schedule property and to create
some right over the plaint schedule property owned by the plaintiff with the
connivance of 9th defendant Corporation of Cochin.
2.The Plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of property having an
extent of 430 square links in Sy.No. 889/2 of Cheranaloor Village obtained vide
sale deed No. 5567/1994 of S.R.O Ernakulam, which is more particularly
described here under as plaint A schedule property. Plaint A schedule property
is situated on the southern side of plaintiff property. A schedule property was
purchased by the plaintiff from his Sister-in-law, Narayani. Ever since the date of
purchase plaintiff is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the above said
property

3. A schedule property is the part and parcel of property derived from the
joint ownership of plaintiff’s father Kochu Pilla and his brother Gopalan. They
executed a partition deed vide document No. 151/1964 of SRO Ernakulam
partitioning their 69 cents of property in East-West direction and allotted 34 ½
cents on the Northern side to the plaintiff’s father Kochupilla and remaining 34 ½
cents on the Southern side to his brother Gopalan.

4. After the death of plaintiff’s father Kochu pilla, the remaining property
available out 34½ cents partitioned among the plaintiff and his brother Narayanan
vide partition deed No. 205/1987 SRO Ernakulam. While partitioning the
 3

property plaintiff and his brother Narayanan set apart a pathway for their
exclusives use and enjoyment of their property through the Southern side of their
property. The pathway set apart by the plaintiff and Narayanan is having a width
of 2.m. and length of approximately190 m. which starts from the South-Eastern
corner of the plaintiff and leads towards East and reaches at newly formed
Chandy Road lies on North South direction is more particularly described here
under as plaint B Schedule property.

4. It is humbly submitted that only plaintiff and Narayan have exclusive

right and title over plaint B schedule pathway. The plaintiff and Narayanan had
assigned portions of property to various owners including defendants. While
assigning the property to the assignees the specific rights to each of the assignees
were clearly mentioned in their respective title deeds. The 1 st defendant had
purchased property vide Document No.1965/1975 of SRO Ernakulam from
plaintiff’s father’s brother Gopalan. The said property is having direct access on
its Eastern side to Chandy Road. The certified copy of the title deed of the 1 st
defendant is produced herewith. The 2nd defendant is the son of 1st defendant.
Recently 1st defendant had executed a settlement deed in favour of 2 nd defendant
vide settlement deed No. 1603/2020 SRO Ernakulam. In the Northern side of the
property is shown as concrete path way belong to the plaintiff and Narayan. The
certified copy of the settlement deed is produced herewith. The 3 rd defendant had
assigned only 4 links pathway right for their ingress and agrees to their property.
Like other assignees of the plaintiff and Narayanan are also having restricted right
to use and enjoy plaint B schedule pathway as mentioned in their respective title
deeds.

6. Since the plaintiff is auto driver by profession he owned auto rickshaw in

his name, for the conveniences and enjoyment of the plaintiff he along with
Narayanan had formed a 2 meter width pathway for their easy ingress and egress
to their respective properties. The right of enjoyment over A & B schedule
pathway is limited to the plaintiff and his brother Narayanan and its assignees.
Plaintiff and his brother Narayanan never parted the possession and enjoyment
and owner ship over the plaint A & B schedule property to any persons including
 4

defendants and Corporation of Cochin. On an earlier occuation some of the

neighboring owners including defendants 1 to 8 attempted to tress pass into the
plaint A & B schedule property and converted the exclusives path way owned and
enjoyed by the plaintiff into a public pathway with the aid ward councilor Henry
Austine . The attempt was becoming futile due to the timely intervention of the
plaintiff. The alleged attempt was made on the basis of misconception that the
plaintiff and his brother surrendered plaint schedule properties to 9 th defendant
and 9th defendant is maintaining the pathway. Immediately on this incident
plaintiff through his son-in-law made an application before the 9 th defendant
Corporation of Cochin asking them whether the bye lane leading from chandy
Road to the plaintiff’s property are surrendered to them and the surrender was
included in the Asset register of the 9th defendant. The 9th defendant issued a reply
dated 8/7/2021, stating that the bye-line leading from Chandy Road is not
surrendered to them and they are not included plaint schedule property in their
asset register as custodian. The original of the reply issued by the 9 th defendant is
produced herewith.

6. That be so when the plaintiff started to construct a compound wall on the

Northern & Eastern side of plaint B schedule pathway some of the defendants and
neighboring owners interfered and demanded to made a survey with the
assistance of Taluk Surveyor before making construction. Accordingly, plaintiff
made an application nearly one year back to measure and demarcate plaint A & B
schedule property. Surveyor attached to the office of the Kanayanoor Taluk
visited the property and started to measure out the property. After a short while
they informed the plaintiff to procure certain documents from the Directorate of
Survey supernatant to complete the survey. Plaintiff produced documents
demanded by the surveyor. Even after plaintiff produce the documents surveyor
did not came to the property till date. Plaintiff strongly believe that the
measurement being delayed by the influence of defendants 1 to 8. Ultimately
plaintiff forced to file a complaint before the District Collector Ernakulam on
2/11/2022. The Direct collector Ernakulam calls for report from the Tahasildar
Kanayanoor. A copy of notice is forwarded by the District Collector to the
plaintiff is produced herewith.
 5

7. Now the Tahsildar has no way other than to measure and demarcate the
property of the plaintiff based on the direction of District Collector. If the
surveyor measured the property based on title and possession it can be clearly
confirmed that plaint A & B schedule properties are exclusively belong to the
plaintiff and Narayanan. In such circumstances the defendant’s or neighboring
owners have any right or authority to use A & B schedule property. For avoiding
such a situation by influencing the ward councilor defendants are attempting to
take possession of the plaint schedule property with the aid of 9 th defendant
Corporation of Cochin. It is humbly submitted that neither the defendants 1 to 8
nor 9th defendant have any right other than the right assigned by the plaintiff and
Naryaran in respect of plaint A & B schedule property. The 9 th defendant has no
right or authority to take plaint schedule properties in their custody without the
due process of law and convert it into a public pathway. The illegal and high
handed activities of the defendants are to be refrain by way of an order of
injunction. A separate application to restrain the 9 th defendant Corporation of
Cochin, their men and officers and their agents not to take possession of plaint
schedule properties and convert it into a public pathway unless due process of
law. Today morning defendants have collected construction materials to construct
compound wall abutting to the pathway. The plaintiff is taking steps to measure
demarcate the plaint schedule properties based on their title deeds revenue records
and possession. The defendants 1 to 8 herein have issued a notice of caveat to the
plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff may raise false claim over the path owned by
them. It is humbly submitted that the defendants have no right or authority to
question the right of plaintiff and his brother Narayanan. The plaintiff apprehend
that the defendants may at any time raise false claim over the plaint schedule
property either directly or through the aid of 9 th defendant without any right or
authority. Plaintiff is a layman having faith on the judicial system followed in the
country. On the other hand defendant’s are highly influential both politically and
financially and taking law in their hands to achieve their goal, in such
circumstances plaintiff has no other way than to approach the temple of justice.
 6

12. The cause of action for the suit arose on 21/05/2021 when the
neighboring owners including defendants 1 to 8 attempted to interfere the
boundary construction to be made by the plaintiff and 10/06/2021 plaintiff
through his son-in law made an application before the 9 th defendant Corporation
of Cochin, on 8/7/2021, 9th defendant given their reply, and on
26/12/2022 ,District collector sought report from Tahsildar , Kanayanoor on the
application filed by the plaintiff and on 5/2/2023 when plaintiff got information
that the defendants 1 to 8 are influenced the 9 th defendant Corporation of Cochin
to take possession of the plaint schedule property without due process of law and
to convert the private way owned by the plaintiff into public way by laying tiles
or concrete and there after the subject properties situated within the limits of
Corporation of Cochin, in Cheranalloor, Village which is within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

13. Valuation for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is given separately
shown under the heading valuation.

Hence the plaintiff herein most humbly begs in the interest of justice that this
Hon’ble court may be pleased to pass a judgment and decree as follows.

1. Pass a judgment and Decree declaring that the plaint B schedule property
is exclusively belong to the plaintiff and Narayanan set apart as a pathway for
their ingress and egress to their properties and their assignees.

2. Pass a permanent Prohibitory Injunction restraining the defendants their

men and agent not to tress pass into the plaint A & B, schedule properties and
commit any waste therein and not to convert the pathway set apart by the plaintiff
and Narayanan for their exclusive use into public pathway without adopting due
process of law by the 9th defendant or their officers or agents under them
including defendants 1 to 8.

3. directing the contesting defendants to pay the cost of the proceeding to the
plaintiffs.

4. pass such other order which may be prayed for and which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit in the interest of justice
 7

VALUATION

Valuation for prayer (1) : Rs. 1000.00

Court fee payable under Section 25(d) ii : Rs. 40.00

Valuation for prayer (2) : Rs. 500.00

Court fee payable under Section 27 © : Rs. 20.00

Valuation for prayer (3 &4 ) : Nil

Total Valuation : Rs. 1500.00

Total court fee payable : Rs. 60.00

Court fee paid : Rs. 60.00

Additional court fees payable : Rs. 100.00

Dated this the 7th day of February 2023

PLAINTIFF

K.B. Rajesh
Counsel for the plaintiffs.
VARIFICATION

I Padmanabhan, S/o late Kochu Pillai, aged 71, Thekkedath Parambu,

Vaduthala, Kochi. 682 023 hereby verify that all the facts stated above are
true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief
content was read over and explained to me in Malayalam and I put my
signature it in my counsel’s office at Ernakulam.

PLAINTIFF

Plaint A Schedule of Property

District Ernakulam
Sub District Ernakulam
Taluk Kanayannur
Village Cheranallur
Kara Vaduthala
 8

Limit Cochin Corporation

Old survey No. 889/2
Extent 430 square links

Description of Property

Part and parcel of property having an extent of 430 square links in Sy.No.
889/2 of cheranelloor village obtained vide Sale deed No. 5567/1994 of
Ernakulam S.R.O

Boundaries

East Pathway set apart by the plaintiff and

Narayanan

North Property of plaintiff.

West Property of plaintiff & Pathway

South Pathway set apart by the plaintiff and

Narayanan

Plaint B Schedule of Property

District Ernakulam
Sub District Ernakulam
Taluk Kanayannur
Village Cheranallur
Kara Vaduthala
Limit Cochin Corporation
Old survey No. 889/2
Extent 1.700 cents

Description of Property
 9

Pathway having a approximate width of 2m and length of 190 m starting

from the south eastern corner of plaintiff’s property and proceeds towards east
and reaches at Chandy Road lays in north south direction comprised in survey
no. 889/2 of Cheranallur village, Kanayannur Taluk, set apart by plaintiff and
Narayanan obtained vide partition deed No.205/1987 of Ernakulam S.R.O

Boundaries

East Chandy Road

North Property of Antony Shibu, Stansilus

T.V etc.

West Property of plaintiff

South Property of George Puthumana,

Sunil P.G, Rajesh, Antony Aneesh
etc.

Dated this the 7th day of February 2023

K.B. Rajesh
Counsel for the Plaintiff

List of Documents :-

1. Original Title Deed No. 5567/1994 of Ernakulam SRO in respect to plaint

A schedule property.
2. Original Title Deed No. 205/1987 of Ernakulam SRO in respect to plaint B
schedule property
3. Certified copy of Tax receipt No. dated in respect to
plaint A schedule property
4. Photostat copy of Title Deed No. 1940/2007 of Njarackal SRO in respect
to plaint B schedule property.
 10

5. Photo copy of Tax receipt No. dated in respect to plaint

B schedule property
6. Photostat copy of Title Deed No. 1943/2007 of Njarackal SRO in respect
to plaint C schedule property.
7. Photo copy of Tax receipt No. dated in respect to plaint
C schedule property
8. Sketch showing the lie and nature of plaint schedule properties.
9. Photo copy of purchase certificate No. 993/1970 of Edappally Land
Tribunal

K.B. Rajesh
Counsel for the Plaintiffs

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MUNSIFF’S COURT AT ERNAKULAM

O. S. No. of 2021

Padmanabhan & others | Plaintiffs

Vs.

George & another | Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, Padmanabhan, S/o late Kochu Pillai, aged 71, Thekkedath Parambu,

Vaduthala, Kochi. 682 023 do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:-

1. I am 1st plaintiff in the above suit the others plaintiffs are my friends and
relatives. I know the facts of the case and I am competent to swear this affidavit
on my behalf and also on behalf of the other plaintiffs.

2. The above suit if filed for fixation of the western boundary of A

Schedule property, Southern and Eastern boundary of B Schedule property and
Northern boundary of C Schedule property with the assistance of a Taluk
Surveyor and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants
 11

their men and agent not to tress pass into the plaint A,B, & C schedule properties
and commit any waste their in.
3. The facts stated in the plaint are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge information and belief. We have not filed any suit or other
proceedings in any court of law seeking the self same relief herein sought. The
documents produced along with plaint are also genuine. All the facts stated above
are true and correct.
Dated this the day of July 2021
Deponent : Padmanabhan

Solemnly affirmed and signed before me by the deponent who is personally

known to me on this the day of July 2021 in my office at Ernakulam.

K.B. Rajesh
Advocate
Pre.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE MUNSIFF’S
COURT AT ERNAKULAM

O. S. No. of 2021

Padmanabhan & others | Plaintiffs

Vs.

George & another | Defendants

PLAINT FILED UNDER O VII R I

AND SECTION 27 OF C.P.C
SUIT FOR INJUNCTION
 12

Valuation Rs.
Court Fees Rs.
C.F. paid Rs.

K.B. Rajesh
Counsel for the Plaintiffs

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MUNSIFF’S COURT AT ERNAKULAM

I.A No. of 2016

In

O. S. No. of 2016

Babu George and others ………….. Petitioners/Plaintiffs

Vs.
Kunjumon and others ……………… Respondents/Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, Babu George, aged 59 years, S/o Late K.P.George,29/23, Kurisinkal House,

New Toc-H School Road, Vyttila P.O., Kochi -682 019. do hereby solemny
affirm and state as follow:-

1. I am 1st plaintiff in the above suit and 1 st petitioner herein. The others
petitioners are my friends and relatives. I know the facts of the case and I am
competent to swear this affidavit on my behalf and also on behalf of the other
plaintiffs.

2. The above suit if filed for fixation of the western boundary of A

Schedule property, Southern and Eastern boundary of B Schedule property and
Northern boundary of C Schedule property with the assistance of a Taluk
 13

Surveyor and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants

their men and agent not to tress pass into the plaint A, B, & C schedule properties
and commit any waste their in.
3. To report the present lie and nature of the property the local inspection
with the assistance of an advocate commissioner is very much necessary. A
separate application to appoint an advocate commissioner to report the matters
mentioned in the accompanying petition is filed here with. The same may be
allowed. Other wise the petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.
All the above facts are true
Deponent : Babu George
Solemnly affirmed and signed before me by the deponent who is personally
known to me on this the 11th day of July 2016 in my office at Ernakulam.

T.R.S Kumar
Advocate

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MUNSIFF’S COURT AT ERNAKULAM

I.A. No. of 2021

In

O. S. No. of 2021

Petitioners/Plaintiffs :

1. Padmanabhan, S/o late Kochu Pillai, aged 71,

Thekkedath Parambu, Vaduthala, Kochi. 682 023

2. Ambika, W/o late Narayanan, aged 70, Thekkedath Parambu,

Vaduthala, Kochi. 682 023

3. Mini, D/o late Narayanan, aged 48, Thekkedath Parambu,

Vaduthala, Kochi. 682 023

4. Suni, S/o late Narayanan, aged 47, Thekkedath Parambu,

Vaduthala, Kochi. 682 023

5. Vinu, S/o late Narayanan, aged 40, Thekkedath Parambu,

Vaduthala, Kochi. 682 023

Vs.

Respondents/Defendants :-
 14

1. George Pudumana, S/o ….. Pudumana House,

aged … Chandy Road,
Vaduthala, Kochi – 682 023.

2. Sinil, S/o George, Pudumana House, aged …

Chandy Road, Vaduthala, Kochi – 682 023.

PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 9 TO APPOINT AN

ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER

For the reason stated in the accompanying affidavit it is humbly prayed that
this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to appoint an advocate commissioner to report
the matters mentioned herein below.

Matters to be reported by the Advocate Commissioner :-

1. To report the lie and nature of the plaint schedule properties.

2. To report the length width and position of the pathway used by the defendants
for their ingress and egress.

3.

4.

5.

6. To report such other matters ask to be reported by the plaintiffs and their
Counsels at the time of inspection.

Dated this the day of July 2016

K.B. Rajesh
Counsel for the Petitioners/plaintiffs
15

Pre.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE MUNSIFF’S
COURT AT ERNAKULAM

I. A. No. of 2021

In

O. S. No. of 2021

Padmanabhan & others | Plaintiffs

Vs.

George & another | Defendants

16

PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT

OF ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER

K.B. Rajesh
Counsel for the petitioners/
Plaintiffs