Case Summary
The plaintiff, KANIYOTH SEENATH, filed a suit against the defendant, KANIYOTH ABDUL RAZAQ, for fixing the boundary and seeking injunction against trespassing. The plaintiff claims that the defendant has encroached upon her property as per the title deed.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The defendant is directed to remove the compound wall within 30 days and is restrained from trespassing on the plaintiff's property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, fixing the boundaries of the properties and granting a mandatory injunction against the defendant for encroachment.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found the plaintiff entitled to relief based on evidence of title and encroachment.
The court found the plaintiff entitled to relief based on evidence of title and encroachment.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found the plaintiff entitled to relief based on evidence of title and encroachment.
The court found the plaintiff entitled to relief based on evidence of title and encroachment.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has taken out a commission and the Advocate commissioner has filed his report based on Ext.A1 partition deed.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- KANIYOTH SEENATH
- Party Age
- 37
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- KANIYOTH ABDUL RAZAQ
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Partition Deed No. 846/2009 dated 27.05.2009.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P. Balagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P. Arun Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Mini. K. Koyeri
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
A mandatory Injunction is passed directing the defendant to remove the compound wall including the interlock portion.
Evidence:
A mandatory Injunction is passed directing the defendant to remove the compound wall including the interlock portion by entering into plaint A schedule property within a period of 30 days from the date of decree.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendant, his men or agents are restrained from trespassing and committing any wastage into the plaint A schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendant, his men or agents are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing, committing any wastage into the plaint A schedule property.
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The boundaries of Plaint A and B schedule properties are fixed based on Ext.A1 title deed.
Evidence:
The boundaries of Plaint A and B schedule properties is fixed based on Ext.A1 title deed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Title deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document relied by the plaintiff for the purpose of fixing the boundary of the plaint A schedule and B schedule held by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The Advocate commissioner inspected the plaint A schedule property and reported on the boundaries and encroachment.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Surveyor plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The plan showing the boundaries and encroachment in the plaint A schedule property.
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 KANIYOTH SEENATH vs KANIYOTH ABDUL RAZAQ regarding fixation of boundary and injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between KANIYOTH SEENATH vs KANIYOTH ABDUL RAZAQ regarding fixation of boundary and injunction.