Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 507 OF 2013

Case between Arimanichola lyyachakkutty vs Ayinikkal Ibrahim et al regarding property dispute and injunction

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF TIRUR
Judge
Smt.SUSHAMA.P.
Order Date
2019-05-30
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Arimanichola lyyachakkutty is the plaintiff, and Ayinikkal Ibrahim and Pambantekath Muahammad Haji are the defendants. The case involves a dispute over whether the plaint schedule property is a public way and seeks a perpetual injunction against the defendants from obstructing the construction of a compound wall.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to prove that the disputed way was not a public road. The plaintiff's request for a declaratory relief and for a perpetual injunction was found unsustainable.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to prove that the disputed way was not a public road. The plaintiff's request for a declaratory relief and for a perpetual injunction was found unsustainable.
Key Reasoning:
The defendants established the existence of a public way, which the plaintiff failed to disprove.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff failed to establish that the way was a mere license and that it had been improperly used by the defendants.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed without cost.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Arimanichola lyyachakkutty
Party Age
60
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Ayinikkal Ibrahim
Party Age
35
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Pambantekath Muahammad Haji
Party Age
60
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Jenam Assignment Deed No.2059/2013, Certified copy of Delivery report of Amin in EP 123/2011, Jenm Assignment Deed No.3009/11, Tax receipt.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri V. Chandrasekharan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Vipin Chandrasekhar
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Irshad.K.K
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought a declaration that the Plaint schedule property is not a public way.
Evidence:
The plaintiff has failed to establish that the disputed way is only a temporary arrangement made for taking building materials to the house of D1 and D2.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing construction of compound wall.
Evidence:
The evidence with respect to the construction of compound wall before the Court is contradictory to pleadings in the plaint.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Jenm Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the plaintiff's title over the Plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Certified copy of Delivery report of Amin
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Documents delivery of possession as part of the earlier court proceedings.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Jenm Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the historical title of the property prior to the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Pertains to the plaint schedule property, supporting the plaintiff's claim.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Contains findings regarding the disputed road and property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Visually documents the state of the disputed property.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Reports on the ongoing status of the public way contention.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type: Commission Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Further illustrates the findings of the commissioner related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.C4

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Arimanichola lyyachakkutty vs Ayinikkal Ibrahim et al regarding property dispute and injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Arimanichola lyyachakkutty vs Ayinikkal Ibrahim et al regarding property dispute and injunction

Quick Facts

Location
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Wed, 05/01/2019 - 12:00
To
Sun, 05/31/2026 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Hamza vs Erattaparambil Hamza et al regarding petition allowance with costs
Munsiff Magistrate Court
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Mullanmadakkal Mammi vs Beeran Haji et al regarding petition on medical grounds
Court of the Munsiff Magistrate
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Vettikkat Parikkuzhiyil Beerali vs Thayyil Kader Haji regarding unknown matter
Munsiff Magistrate Court
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between P.Damkumar vs Palakkavalappil Puthiyamaliyekkal Gulam Ali et al regarding default
Munsiff Magistrate Court
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Muhammed Thameem vs Muhammed Abdul Noor regarding Default Judgment
Munsiff Magistrate Court
Civil Suit Defendant Won