Case Summary
KETTUNGAL EDAVATTAN HAMEED seeks a permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against ABDULLA HAJI and Indus Towers Ltd. This case involves a dispute over property boundaries and the installation of a mobile tower.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The defendants are restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and are directed to restore the boundary stones within a month.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
OS 29/2024 is decreed in favor of KETTUNGAL EDAVATTAN HAMEED, granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against ABDULLA HAJI and Indus Towers Ltd. OS 102/2024 is dismissed with costs.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The defendants encroached upon the plaint schedule property, and the plaintiff established their right to protection.
The defendants encroached upon the plaint schedule property, and the plaintiff established their right to protection.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The case of the plaintiff is established, showing that the second defendant has not started the constructions but has seen the defendants encroaching into the plaint schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, OS 29/2024 is decreed with costs. 1. The defendants, their men or agents are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, effecting any construction of the mobile tower, committing alterations of the boundaries and committing any waste therein.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- KETTUNGAL EDAVATTAN HAMEED
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- ABDULLA HAJI
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- MANAGING DIRECTOR, Indus Towers Ltd.
Plaintiffs Documents
Settlement Deed No. 411/2010 of SRO, Edacheri, Basic Tax Receipt issued by Village Office, Edacheri to Hameed.
Defendants Documents
Janmam Assignment Deed No. 1338/2015 of SRO, Edacheri, Lease Deed No. 701/2024 of SRO, Edacheri.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Padmanabhan Ponnamkott
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. V. G. Niran
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Previn. P. M
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
OS 29/2024 is decreed with costs providing the defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants directed to restore the boundary stones at their expense.
Evidence:
A decree of mandatory injunction is passed directing the defendants to restore the red laterite stones situated on the western portion of the plaint schedule property which has been altered by them within a period of one month from the date of decree under the expense of the defendants.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Relief of permanent prohibitory injunction sought by the plaintiff in OS 102/2024.
Evidence:
The relief asked by the defendants in OS 102/2024 is denied as it is not proved before this court.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The settlement deed supports the plaintiff's claim of absolute possession over the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The tax receipt establishes the plaintiff's payment of taxes concerning the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Janmam Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The deed presents the defendants' claim over the property and counters the plaintiff's assertions.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Lease Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The lease deed outlines the second defendant's rights to construct a mobile tower, which is central to the dispute.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The commission report shed light on the property boundaries and confirmed some damage to the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The report provided by the advocate commissioner relates to identification issues of property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Commissioner's Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The plan is instrumental in identifying the layout and boundaries of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS
Case Code Year
2024