Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS 147/2022

Case between Baby Rajan et al vs Ashokan. M. P regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and declaration

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Judge
Sri. Yadukrishnan. B
Order Date
2025-11-29
Duration
approximately-3 years 20 days
Case Code No.
147
Case Closed
Sat, 11/29/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

This case involves Baby Rajan and others seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against Ashokan. M. P regarding their easement rights over a pathway. The parties are in dispute over the ownership and access rights to the property.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed OS 147/2022 and decreed OS 24/2023. The defendant, who was the plaintiff in OS 24/2023, was entitled to recover possession of the property based on title.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed OS 147/2022 and decreed OS 24/2023. The defendant, who was the plaintiff in OS 24/2023, was entitled to recover possession of the property based on title.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to establish an easement by prescription over the B schedule property.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs did not mount the box and give evidence with regard to the claim of easement by prescription.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, OS 147/2022 is dismissed with costs and OS 24/2023 is decreed with costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Baby Rajan
Party Age
46
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Nidhin Raj M.P
Party Age
29
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Naveen Raj
Party Age
26
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Ashokan. M. P
Party Age
52
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Assignment Deed No. 2709/1991, Assignment Deed No. 1914/1993, Assignment Deed No. 1221/1996.
Defendants Documents
Assignment Deed No. 948/2001, Assignment Deed No. 117/2004.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Prafullachandran Moodadi
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Pradeepan. K. P
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Gireesh. P
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Subramanyian. C
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. P. Anoop
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Previn. P. M
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant from trespassing into the plaint B schedule property.
Evidence:
Since, the plaintiffs failed to establish easement by prescription over B schedule way then automatically they are not entitled to ask for a relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant and his men from trespassing into the plaint B schedule property.
Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a declaration regarding their easement right by prescription over the plaint B schedule property.
Evidence:
If the plaintiffs has failed to establish the same they cannot seek a relief of declaration from this court.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendant sought a recovery of possession of the plaint B schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendant who is the plaintiff in OS 24/2023 is entitled for a decree of recovery of possession of B schedule from the plaintiffs on the strength of their title.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The plaintiffs submitted these exhibits to establish their ownership and rights over the plaint A schedule property and easement over the plaint B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1 to A10
Document Type: Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The defendant submitted these exhibits to support their claim and title over the plaint B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.B1 to B3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
These reports were used by the court to determine the identity and status of the plaint schedule properties.
Reference:
Ext.C1 to C3(a)

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS
Case Code Year
2022

Quick Facts

Location
Kozhikode District, Kerala State
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Case Filed
Sat, 01/01/2022 - 12:00
Case Closed
Sat, 11/29/2025 - 12:00
From
Mon, 09/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 12/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between CHANDRAN vs SECRETARY et al regarding petition dismissal for default
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between N. P. PADMAKUMAR et al vs KASTHURIKUNI MOIDU HAJI et al regarding reopening evidence.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between KOMBIYULLATHIL THAZHAKUNIYIL ALTHAF vs KURUNNAM VEETTIL ABDULLA et al regarding issuance of summons
IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Meethale Arayammal Ismayil vs Kokkandiyeri Mahamood regarding setting aside of an ex parte decree.
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