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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 89 OF 2014

Case between Balakrishnan vs Moideenkoya regarding Recovery of Possession

Court
The Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Judge
Smt.NIMMI.K.K.
Order Date
2019-03-30
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Balakrishnan, a deaf and dumb person, claimed that Moideenkoya illegally took possession of a business bunk that he was supposed to manage. The plaintiff sought recovery of possession after multiple failed attempts to reclaim it.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to vacate the property and hand it back to the plaintiff.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The defendant is directed to give vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within 2 months.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The defendant failed to prove any lawful right over the property and was found to have trespassed.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1. The defendant is directed to give vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within 2 months from today.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Balakrishnan (47 years) Karikkottil House, P.O.Painkannur, Pandikasala, Kuttippuram amsom Painkannur desom, Tirur Taluk. Saraswathi (45 years) Karikkottil House, P.O.Painkannur, Kuttippuram amsom desom, Tirur Taluk.

Defendants

Moideenkoya (41 years) Pariyarath Veedu, Kuttippuram amsom desom & Post, Tirur Taluk.

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to get recovery of possession from the defendant as claimed.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Cost of the suit to be realized from the defendant.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to realize the cost of the entire proceedings from the defendant.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Affidavit
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Received by the plaintiff from Kuttippuram Grama Panchayath.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Licence
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Licence for conducting business.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Copy of sanction
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of sanction for granting licence.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Receipts issued to the plaintiff from Kuttippuram Grama Panchayath.
Reference:
Ext.A4-A17
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Notice sent by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Various receipts substantiating defendant's claims.
Reference:
Ext.B2-B10
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report submitted by Advocate Commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission plan submitted by Advocate Commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C2

Quick Facts

Location
Tirur
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases