Case Summary
Dr. Ramanadhan filed a suit for a perpetual prohibitory injunction against Raju.P.K to prevent him from encroaching upon property owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant attempted to construct a boundary wall and gate on the plaintiff's property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to prove the identity of the plaint C schedule property and the cause of action alleged. The court found that the plaintiff could not establish his claims against the defendant.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff did not prove the identity of the property nor the claims of encroachment.
The plaintiff did not prove the identity of the property nor the claims of encroachment.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff did not prove the identity of the property nor the claims of encroachment.
The plaintiff did not prove the identity of the property nor the claims of encroachment.
Supporting Evidence
The identity is not proved by the plaintiff, the alleged cause of action also cannot be found correct as it is doubtful whether any trespass was made by the defendant to the plaint C schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is dismissed with costs of the defendant.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Dr. Ramanadhan
- Party Age
- 71
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Raju.P.K
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of deed No. 2232/71, Certified copy of Janmam sale deed No.1885/2010, Land tax receipt
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of Janmam sale deed No. 1885/2010
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. M.P. Radhakrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Lathika.K
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Razal Rahiman
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Jyothi.R
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from encroaching upon the plaint C schedule property.
Evidence:
Hence it is found that the plaintiff is not entitled to get a decree for perpetual prohibitory injunction against the defendant.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as the basis for the plaintiff's claim of possession over the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Janmam sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This sale deed outlines the defendant's assignment of property and the associated rights.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the plaintiff's claim of possession by showing tax payment on the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Janmam sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document outlines the defendant's rights to the property and access.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Dr. Ramanadhan vs Raju.P.K regarding injunction and property disputes
Case Code Year
Case between Dr. Ramanadhan vs Raju.P.K regarding injunction and property disputes