Case Summary
The plaintiffs sought the court's intervention to fix the boundary between properties and obtain a mandatory injunction to remove encroachments.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Fixation of boundary and mandatory injunction
Case Type
Civil Suit - Boundary Fixation and Mandatory Injunction
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. It was declared that the plaintiff's property exclusively belongs to them, and the defendants were directed to remove encroachments.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The boundary was clearly defined by the commissioner report and the defendants had encroached upon the plaintiff's property.
The boundary was clearly defined by the commissioner report and the defendants had encroached upon the plaintiff's property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The boundary was clearly defined by the commissioner report and the defendants had encroached upon the plaintiff's property.
The boundary was clearly defined by the commissioner report and the defendants had encroached upon the plaintiff's property.
Supporting Evidence
The boundary was clearly defined by the commissioner report and the defendants had encroached upon the plaintiff's property.
Judgment Evidence:
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. It was declared that the plaintiff's property exclusively belongs to them, and the defendants were directed to remove encroachments.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Aali Muhammed
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Arayantepurakkal Kunhimol
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Arayantepurakkal Hafsath
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Arayantepurakkal Subaida
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Arayantepurakkal Mujeeb
- Party Age
- 44
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Arayantepurakkal Salam
- Party Age
- 36
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Muhammedkutty
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sidheeq
- Party Age
- 36
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Siraj
- Party Age
- 35
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Nishad
- Party Age
- 34
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Marakkar
- Party Age
- 30
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Shihab
- Party Age
- 29
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Khalidkutty
- Party Age
- 25
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Azeez
- Party Age
- 23
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sameer
- Party Age
- 22
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Moideen Bava
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Hamzakutty
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Arayantepurakkal Kunhappu
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Order, Purchase certificate No.B2.2555/ASST, Sketch submitted along with the plaint, Purchase certificate B 2 2555/ASST
Defendants Documents
Purchase certificate No. B 2-2780/ASST, Joint release deed executed in favor of the first defendant, Agreement executed on 18-1-2008
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. M.A.M. Rafeek
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. K.C. Naseer
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Neethu.P.T.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. V. Chandrasekharan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Vipin.K
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Boundary Fixation
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Fixation of boundary between properties
Evidence:
Court decree and commissioner report
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Removal of encroachments
Evidence:
Court decree and commissioner report
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Order
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Judicial order decreeing the suit
Reference:
Document Type:
Purchase Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of ownership of plaintiff's property
Reference:
No.B2.2555/ASST
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Illustration of the property boundaries
Reference:
Sketch submitted with the plaint
Document Type:
Purchase Certificate
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Evidence of defendant's property ownership
Reference:
No. B 2-2780/ASST
Document Type:
Agreement
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Details of property transfer between defendants
Reference:
Executed on 18-1-2008
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit - Boundary Fixation and Mandatory Injunction
Category
Injunction and Access Rights
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Aali Muhammed et al vs Muhammedkutty et al regarding boundary fixation and mandatory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Aali Muhammed et al vs Muhammedkutty et al regarding boundary fixation and mandatory injunction