Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS 31/2025

Case between KANNATEENTAVITA SAROJINI AMMA vs MINI regarding injunction

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Judge
Sri. Yadukrishnan. B
Order Date
2025-09-26
Duration
approximately-6 months
Case Code No.
31
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, KANNATEENTAVITA SAROJINI AMMA, filed a petition against MINI seeking an injunction to prevent her from trespassing and demolishing a shop building on the plaint schedule property. The case involves disputes over property ownership and possession.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the petition for an injunction sought by the plaintiff, finding that she had not made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in favor of the defendant.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the petition for an injunction sought by the plaintiff, finding that she had not made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in favor of the defendant.
Key Reasoning:
The defendant established prima facie possession through lease evidence.
Why Defendant Won:
The defendant established prima facie possession through lease evidence.
Supporting Evidence
However, the petitioner has failed to identify the plaint schedule property based on the title deed.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, IA 2/2025 is dismissed with costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
KANNATEENTAVITA SAROJINI AMMA
Party Age
80
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
MINI
Party Age
50
Relation
D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Assignment Deed No. 1590/1969, Purchase Certificate issued by Land Tribunal, Tax receipts.
Defendants Documents
Agreement entered in between Mini and Nanu, Building Age Certificates.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. N. M. Kuttikrishnan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Rahul Raj
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff requested an injunction to prevent the defendant from trespassing and demolishing the shop building.
Evidence:
The petitioner plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case. The balance of convenience is not in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as evidence of the plaintiff's claim of ownership over the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Purchase Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is used to demonstrate the plaintiff's right to the land as per the land tribunal's decision.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows that the plaintiff has been regularly paying taxes for the property, supporting her claim of possession.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Another tax receipt reinforcing the claim of the plaintiff regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This tax receipt further establishes the financial responsibility of the plaintiff for the property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Agreement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document supports the defendant's position that she has leased the disputed property to a tenant.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Building age Certificate
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Provides information about the age of the building, indicating ownership by the defendant's father.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Building age Certificate
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Another certificate that augments the defendant's claim regarding the ownership of the disputed building.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The court relied on this report to understand the physical condition and status of the property in dispute.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Sketch Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This sketch plan supports the findings in the commission report regarding the property layout.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Injunction and Access Rights
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS
Case Code Year
2025

Quick Facts

Location
NADAPURAM, Kozhikode District, Kerala State
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Mon, 09/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 12/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Souda vs Executive Engineer, Secretary, Uralunkal Labour Contract Co-operative Society Limited regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.
IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between KINARULLA PARAMBATH ROOPA et al vs KIZHAKKUM MURI GULIKAN PARIPALANA SAMITHI et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Siddequl Akbar vs Muhammadali et al regarding injunction and mandatory relief.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between N. P. PADMAKUMAR et al vs KASTHURIKUNI MOIDU HAJI et al regarding reopening evidence.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Abdulla Sons Private Limited Company et al vs Aneesh regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won