Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
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

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
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
Key Reasoning:
The defendants established the existence of a public way, which the plaintiff failed to disprove.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed without cost.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Arimanichola lyyachakkutty (60 years years) Thanaloor amsom, desom and Post, Tirur Taluk, Pin: 676 307

Defendants

Ayinikkal Ibrahim (35 years years) Pambantekath Muahammad Haji (60 years years)

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

Quick Facts

Location
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases