Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
EP 466/2012

Case between Kainikkara Muhammedkutty vs Thachaparambil Kunhimuhammed regarding vacant possession

Court
Court of Munsiff Magistrate
Judge
Sri. Biju.V.G
Order Date
2015-04-04
Duration
2 years, 4 months, 1 day
Case Code No.
466
Case Closed
Sat, 04/04/2015 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Kainikkara Muhammedkutty filed a case against Thachaparambil Kunhimuhammed seeking vacant possession of the petition schedule property, and the court recorded satisfaction of the order upon petitioner obtaining vacant possession.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court recorded satisfaction of the order after the petitioner obtained vacant possession of the petition schedule property.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Vacant Possession
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court recorded satisfaction of the order after the petitioner obtained vacant possession of the petition schedule property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Supporting Evidence

Judgment Evidence:

Counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner got the vacant possession of the petition schedule property. Hence satisfaction of the order is recorded. Petition is closed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Kainikkara Muhammedkutty
Party Age
68
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Thachaparambil Kunhimuhammed alias Kunhuttybava
Party Age
45
Plaintiffs Documents
Not mentioned
Defendants Documents
Not mentioned

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
M.K.Moosakutty
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Advocate appearing for Thachaparambil Kunhimuhammed alias Kunhuttybava
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Vacant Possession
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Petitioner obtained vacant possession of the petition schedule property.
Evidence:
Counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner got the vacant possession of the petition schedule property. Hence satisfaction of the order is recorded.

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Case Code
EP
Case Code Year
2012

Quick Facts

Location
Tirur, Malappuram
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Case Filed
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 12:00
Case Closed
Sat, 04/04/2015 - 12:00
From
Wed, 04/01/2015 - 12:00
To
Thu, 04/30/2015 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
100%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Hamza Haji vs Chakkalakkal Harif et al regarding property delivery
Court of the Munsiff Magistrate
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Unniveettil Vinesh vs Velalkandiparambil Gopinathan regarding property delivery
Munsiff Magistrate Court
Civil Suit Unknown
Case between Kunnathodi Sarada et al vs Puliyakkathodi Kolavan et al regarding delivery of property
Munsiff Magistrate Court
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Devaki vs Subrahmanyan regarding property delivery
Court of Munsiff Magistrate
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Muhammedkutty et al vs Komukkutty regarding property delivery
Court of the Munsiff Magistrate
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won