Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
ORIGINAL SUIT 35/2025

Case between Adikkuniyil Naseera et al vs Sivaram regarding Mandatory injunction

Court
IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Judge
Sri. Yadukrishnan. B
Order Date
2025-08-07
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs are seeking a mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to vacate a shop room and restore it to its original condition. The defendant has failed to vacate the premises after the license was terminated, causing loss to the plaintiffs.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The suit is decreed with costs, ordering the defendant to vacate the shop room and return the keys to the second plaintiff.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the shop room and hand over the key to the second plaintiff within a month.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is decreed with costs, ordering the defendant to vacate the shop room and return the keys to the second plaintiff.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The case of the plaintiff succeeds as the defendant was absent and the claims remained unchallenged.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The case of the plaintiff succeeds as the defendant was absent and the claims remained unchallenged.
Supporting Evidence
Since, the defendants are proceeded exparte the case of the plaintiff remain unchallenged and undisputed.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. A mandatory injunction is passed directing the defendant to vacate the plaint B schedule shop room and also to remove all the articles belonging to him from the shop room and to hand over the key of the said shop room to the 2nd plaintiff within a period of one month from the date of passing of the decree.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Adikkuniyil Naseera
Party Age
44
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Easakkuniyil Jaseela
Party Age
39
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Easakkuniyil Jamseena
Party Age
29
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sivaram
Party Age
39
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Assignment Deed No. 2063/2008, Settlement Deed No. 1880/2011, Settlement Deed No. 1881/2011, Settlement Deed No. 1882/2011, License Agreement entered in between Nazeera, Jaseela and Jamseena.
Defendants Documents
Nil

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. M. Siju
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Muhammad Ali. E. K
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Directing the defendant to vacate the plaint B schedule shop room and remove all articles.
Evidence:
A mandatory injunction is passed directing the defendant to vacate the plaint B schedule shop room and also to remove all the articles belonging to him from the shop room and to hand over the key of the said shop room to the 2nd plaintiff within a period of one month from the date of passing of the decree.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes ownership of the plaint B schedule shop room by the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is relevant to outlining agreements pertaining to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides additional context on property agreements relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document relates to the settlement agreements involving the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: License Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document indicates the terms under which the defendant was allowed to occupy the shop room.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows that a notice was sent to the defendant regarding the property issue.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as proof of sending legal communication to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Postal Acknowledgment Card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document confirms receipt of the legal notice by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document authorizes Muhammad to act on behalf of the plaintiffs in this matter.
Reference:
Ext.A9

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Adikkuniyil Naseera et al vs Sivaram regarding Mandatory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Adikkuniyil Naseera et al vs Sivaram regarding Mandatory injunction

Quick Facts

Location
Nadapuram, Kozhikode District
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Tue, 04/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 08/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between SYNDICATE BANK vs ADARSH. A. C et al regarding dismissal of suit.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between JANU vs BAHULEYAN @ BABU regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Thondarkulangara Korumbathi et al vs Thondarkulangara Chekkon et al regarding preliminary decree
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Irumbanandiyil Aboobacker Haji et al vs Haris et al regarding permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Alikkutty. T. P vs Irumbanandiyil Aboobacker Haji regarding dismissal for default
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won