Case Summary
Haneefa, the plaintiff, is seeking an injunction against Fathima Umarkunnath and others regarding a property dispute. The plaintiff claims ownership of the property and contends that the defendants attempted to evict his mother from the house.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The defendants No. 2 to 4 and their men are restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and house therein and also restrained from committing waste.
Case Type
Injunction
Final Judgment
No
The court found in favor of the plaintiff, Haneefa, granting an injunction against the defendants from trespassing into the property. The court ruled that the defendants had no right over the property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff proved ownership of the property by adducible evidence and established a threat from the defendants.
The plaintiff proved ownership of the property by adducible evidence and established a threat from the defendants.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff proved ownership of the property by adducible evidence and established a threat from the defendants.
The plaintiff proved ownership of the property by adducible evidence and established a threat from the defendants.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged. Evidence of PW1, coupled with Ext. A1 to A3 series would show that plaintiff is in ownership and possession of the plaint schedule house.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows:- I. The defendants No. 2 to 4 and their men are restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and house therein and also restrained from committing waste. II. The defendants No. 2 to 4 and their men are further restrained from interfering with the peaceable possession and enjoyment of the property and house, by the plaintiff and also prohibited from taking out any of the house hold articles from there.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Haneefa
- Party Age
- 39
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Aayisummu
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Fathima Umarkunnath
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Palliyalil Ayisu
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Abdunazar
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Thekkepeediyekkal Muhammed kutty
- Party Age
- 47
Plaintiffs Documents
Jenim Assignment Deed No.200/2006, Building tax receipt dated 07.09.2016, Land tax receipts dated 19.10.2011, 19.02.2013, 09.01.2014, 05.05.2015, and 07.09.2016.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. V.Chandrasekharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.K.Vipin
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.A.Mamu
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants No. 2 to 4 are restrained from trespassing and interfering with the plaintiff's possession.
Evidence:
The suit is decreed as follows: The defendants No. 2 to 4 and their men are restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and house therein and also restrained from committing waste.
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants No. 2 to 4 are prohibited from interfering with the peaceable possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff.
Evidence:
The defendants No. 2 to 4 and their men are further restrained from interfering with the peaceable possession and enjoyment of the property and house, by the plaintiff.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is entitled to realise the costs of the suit from the defendants.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Jenmi Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the plaintiff's ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This receipt shows the plaintiff has been paying taxes related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Land Tax receipts
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
These receipts confirm the plaintiff's ongoing ownership and financial responsibility for the land.
Reference:
Ext.A3 (a) to (e)
Document Type:
Copy of Fair Order
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This order contains restrictions placed on the defendants regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report details findings about the occupancy and condition of the plaint schedule house.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This plan visually documents the layout and characteristics of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Injunction
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Haneefa vs Fathima Umarkunnath et al regarding Injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Haneefa vs Fathima Umarkunnath et al regarding Injunction