Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Geetha Panicker and others, are seeking a decree to restrain the defendant, Madhusoodhanan, from committing waste on the property and to vacate the premises. The defendant claims occupancy rights based on ownership assertions.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendant No.1 and his men are permanently restrained from committing waste in the plaint schedule property and are directed to vacate within one month.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them a decree for both prohibitory and mandatory injunctions against the defendant.
Why Plaintiff Won:
Plaintiffs successfully proved ownership and defendant's unauthorized occupation.
Plaintiffs successfully proved ownership and defendant's unauthorized occupation.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Plaintiffs successfully proved ownership and defendant's unauthorized occupation.
Plaintiffs successfully proved ownership and defendant's unauthorized occupation.
Supporting Evidence
The defendant has been residing in the plaint schedule property only as a son of Janaki Amma and brother of Sethumadhavan with the permission of Sethumadhavan. As per Section 106 of Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, the burden of proof rests with the defendant to prove the existence of any particular fact.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed with costs as follows: Defendant No.1 and his men are permanently restrained by a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction from committing waste in plaint schedule property and house therein and from altering the nature of plaint schedule property and the house therein. Defendant No.1 is directed by a decree for mandatory injunction to vacate from the house in the plaint schedule property within one month from this date.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Geetha Panicker
- Party Age
- 61
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Soorya Panicker
- Party Age
- 31
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Poornima Panicker
- Party Age
- 25
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Madhusoodhanan
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Baby Girija
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rajaharshan
- Party Age
- 61
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Janmam sale deed No.639/74, Certified copy of Janmam sale deed No. 1368/94, Settlement deed No. 160/2006, Copy of lawyer notice, Death certificate of Sethumadhavan Panicker, Legal heirship certificate.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. K.P. Gangadharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P.C. Satheesh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P.P. Rajiv Luxman
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K.M. Abhilash
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- R. Beseena
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Nithin Sathyendran.P
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendant No.1 and his men are permanently restrained from committing waste in plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
Defendant No.1 and his men are permanently restrained by a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction from committing waste in plaint schedule property and house therein and from altering the nature of plaint schedule property and the house therein.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendant No.1 is directed to vacate from the house in the plaint schedule property within one month.
Evidence:
Defendant No.1 is directed by a decree for mandatory injunction to vacate from the house in the plaint schedule property within one month from this date.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs are allowed to realise costs of this suit from defendant No.1.
Evidence:
In view of the findings in issue Nos’1 to 3 it is found that defendant No.1 is in unauthorised occupation and he should be evicted.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Original sale deed No. 639/1974 in favour of Janaki Amma and Ramakrishnan.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No. 1368/1994 executed by Ramakrishnan in favour of Sethumadhavan.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Settlement deed No. 160/2006 executed by Janaki Amma in favour of Sethumadhavan.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of lawyer notice issued to the defendant No.1.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Postal receipt related to the lawyer notice.
Reference:
Ext.A4(b)
Document Type:
Death Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Death certificate of Sedhumadhavan Panicker.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Legal heirship certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Legal heirship certificate of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report filed by advocate Balraj.A.S.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Sketch related to the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
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 Geetha Panicker et al vs Madhusoodhanan et al regarding perpetual prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Geetha Panicker et al vs Madhusoodhanan et al regarding perpetual prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction