Case Summary
Ammad has filed a suit against Edathil Sudheer for permanent prohibitory injunction, a mandatory injunction to remove illegal constructions, and for damages. The defendant failed to appear and was set exparte.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Mandatory injunction to remove constructions, restraining order for trespassing, and damages of Rs.10,000/-
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting him mandatory injunction, permanent prohibitory injunction, and damages. The defendant was ordered to remove illegal constructions and restore the property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established his case through the exhibited documents and evidence, with the defendant failing to contest the claims.
The plaintiff established his case through the exhibited documents and evidence, with the defendant failing to contest the claims.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff established his case through the exhibited documents and evidence, with the defendant failing to contest the claims.
The plaintiff established his case through the exhibited documents and evidence, with the defendant failing to contest the claims.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has established a case in his favour. Since, the defendant is proceeded exparte, the case of the plaintiff stands unchallenged and undisputed.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. Mandatory injunction is passed directing the defendant to remove the constructions effected by him in the plaint schedule property...
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- AMMAD
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- EDATHIL SUDHEER
- Party Age
- 47
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Assignment Deed executed by Ayisu and 4 others, Copy of Lawyer Notice, Postal Receipt, Postal Acknowledgment Card signed by defendant
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P. P. Hashick
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt. E. Smitha
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Directing the defendant to remove illegal constructions and restore the property.
Evidence:
A mandatory injunction is passed directing the defendant to remove the constructions effected by him in the plaint schedule property and is directed to restore the plaint schedule property into its original position within a period of one month from the date of passing the decree.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Restraining the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendant, their men or agents are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and also from doing any act that which affect the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Damages
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Entitlement to recover Rs. 10,000 towards damages for unauthorized use of the property.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards damages for unauthorized use of plaint schedule property from the date of agreement till the date on which the defendant vacate the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Executed by Ayisu and 4 others in favour of Ammad, serving as proof of ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Copy of Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice sent to the defendant regarding the legal dispute.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of sending the lawyer notice.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Postal Acknowledgment Card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Acknowledgment signed by the defendant confirming receipt of the notice.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Report filed by the Advocate Commissioner providing evidence on the property condition.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Plan filed by the Advocate Commissioner showing the layout of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
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 Ammad vs Edathil Sudheer regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and damages
Case Code Year
Case between Ammad vs Edathil Sudheer regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and damages