Case Summary
Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction against defendants for removing plantations from the plaint schedule property and interfering with peaceful possession.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Perpetual Injunction
Case Type
Civil Suit - Perpetual Injunction
Final Judgment
No
The court granted a perpetual injunction restraining defendants from trespassing, interfering with, or committing waste on the plaint schedule property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
Plaintiffs provided cogent and reliable evidence including Ext.A1, Ext.C1, C2, C3, and C4 to prove their exclusive possession and entitlement to relief.
Plaintiffs provided cogent and reliable evidence including Ext.A1, Ext.C1, C2, C3, and C4 to prove their exclusive possession and entitlement to relief.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Plaintiffs provided cogent and reliable evidence including Ext.A1, Ext.C1, C2, C3, and C4 to prove their exclusive possession and entitlement to relief.
Plaintiffs provided cogent and reliable evidence including Ext.A1, Ext.C1, C2, C3, and C4 to prove their exclusive possession and entitlement to relief.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence adduced by the plaintiffs remained unchallenged, and they provided substantial proof of exclusive possession and entitlement to relief.
Judgment Evidence:
The suit is decreed as follows: The defendants and their men are restrained by a perpetual injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule or from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs or from committing waste in the plaint schedule property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Avarukunnan Abid
- Party Age
- 35
- Relation
- S/o. Aboobakkar
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Kunduvayil Sameera
- Party Age
- 29
- Relation
- W/o. Avarukunnan Abid
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Naduthodi Aboobakkar
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o. Muhammed
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Naduthodi Amina
- Party Age
- 76
- Relation
- D/o. Unneenkutty
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Safiya
- Party Age
- 35
- Relation
- W/o. Muhammadali Nellikkal
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Muhammadali Nellikkal
- Party Age
- 36
- Relation
- S/o. Aboobakkar
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Jenam Assignment Deed, Petition filed before Sub Inspector of Police, Tax receipt
Defendants Documents
Not Applicable
Advocates
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Perpetual Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Restraining defendants from trespassing, interfering, or committing waste on the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The suit is decreed as follows: The defendants and their men are restrained by a perpetual injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule or from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs or from committing waste in the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Not Decided
Description:
Defendants to pay the costs of the suit.
Evidence:
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified Copy
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Jenam Assignment Deed
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of tax payment
Reference:
A3
Document Type:
Commissioner Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Report showing visible signs of alleged activities
Reference:
C1
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Court exhibit plan of the property
Reference:
C2
Document Type:
Commissioner Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Report validating identity of plaint schedule property
Reference:
C3
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Plan showing identification of the property
Reference:
C4
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit - Perpetual Injunction
Category
Injunction and Access Rights
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Property dispute
Case Code
Case between Avarukunnan Abid et al vs Naduthodi Aboobakkar et al regarding perpetual injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Avarukunnan Abid et al vs Naduthodi Aboobakkar et al regarding perpetual injunction