Case Summary
The plaintiff Gangadharan is seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants for trespassing and constructing a mobile tower in proximity to his property. The defendants include Ahammad and Summit Digital Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., who are accused of disturbing the plaintiff's property boundaries.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing and construction activities, and a mandatory injunction to remove the soil and restore the property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court granted the plaintiff's request for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from trespassing and constructing a tower on the plaintiff's property. Additionally, a mandatory injunction was ordered for the removal of the soil dumped on the plaint schedule property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The defendants admitted to having no right to effect construction of the mobile tower after a lease agreement was terminated. No evidence was presented to support continued construction.
The defendants admitted to having no right to effect construction of the mobile tower after a lease agreement was terminated. No evidence was presented to support continued construction.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The defendants admitted to having no right to effect construction of the mobile tower after a lease agreement was terminated. No evidence was presented to support continued construction.
The defendants admitted to having no right to effect construction of the mobile tower after a lease agreement was terminated. No evidence was presented to support continued construction.
Supporting Evidence
It is admitted by DW1 that the lease deed between the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant has been terminated and the 2nd defendant has no right to effect any construction of tower in the property of the 1st defendant.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. The defendants and their men are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, effecting construction of a tower, effecting alterations in the plaint schedule property and also from committing any waste there in.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Gangadharan
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ahammad
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Summit Digital Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd
Plaintiffs Documents
Basic Tax Receipt issued by Village Officer, Nadapuram to Gangadharan, Letter issued by Summit Digital Infrastructure Ltd. to Gangadharan, Certified copy of Assignment Deed No. 165/2012 of SRO, Nadapuram executed by Leela Amma and others in favour of Gangadharan.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. M. Siju
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Divya. K. K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Abdul Latheef. V. K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P. Fazil
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Jithin Paul Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Fadil Fazil
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Aswathy Jayachandran
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Aswani. N. M
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Restraining the defendants from trespassing and constructing on the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendants and their men are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, effecting construction of a tower, effecting alterations in the plaint schedule property and also from committing any waste there in.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Directing the defendants to remove the soil dumped and restore the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
A mandatory injunction is passed directing the defendants to remove the soil from the plaint schedule property within a period of 1 month from the date of decree and to restore the plaint schedule property to its original position.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Basic Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the plaintiff's ownership and tax payment for the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Communication from the 2nd defendant regarding the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Certified copy of assignment deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of the plaintiff's title to the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Documents the findings of the advocate commissioner regarding the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Surveyor plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Visual representation of the property boundaries and construction issues.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Gangadharan vs Ahammad et al regarding permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Gangadharan vs Ahammad et al regarding permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction.