Case Summary
Koonathil Pathummu Umma and Thanikkatt Muhammedali are plaintiffs claiming that their basement was unlawfully demolished by the defendants including the Triprangode Grama Panchayat and its Secretary. The defendants argue that the plaintiffs encroached onto public property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The court found that the plaintiffs had encroached upon public property without obtaining the necessary permissions.
The court found that the plaintiffs had encroached upon public property without obtaining the necessary permissions.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Koonathil Pathummu Umma (65 years)
Thriprangode amsom Kazhinhikkara desom, Tirur Taluk
Thanikkatt Muhammedali (67 years)
Thriprangode amsom Kazhinhikkara desom, Tirur Taluk
Defendants
Thanikkatt Muhammed (54 years)
Thriprangode amsom Kazhinhikkara desom, Tirur Taluk
Paralakath Muhammed Rafeekh (28 years)
Thriprangode amsom Kazhinhikkara desom, Tirur Taluk
Thriprangode Grama Panchayath (Age not specified years)
P.O.Thriprangode, Tirur – 676 108
A. Jayasankar (54 years)
P.O.Thriprangode, Tirur – 676 108
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.
Evidence:
Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the equitable relief of injunction.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs also sought a mandatory injunction.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are not entitled to get a mandatory injunction, as prayed for.
Relief Type:
Damages
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs claimed compensation of Rs. 35,000/- from the defendants.
Evidence:
Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any compensation from D4.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Jenm Assignment deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the title of the plaint schedule property belonging to Plaintiff No.1.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Jenm Assignment deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document relates to the property assigned to Plaintiff No.2.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Jenm Assignment deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document also pertains to the assignment relevant to Plaintiff No.2.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report contains findings relevant to the suit.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This plan provides a visual representation related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report contains additional findings relevant to the suit.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type:
Commission Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This plan provides further insight into the case.
Reference:
Ext.C4
Document Type:
Receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This receipt serves as an evidence related to the case's context.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Copy of petition submitted before RDO
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document demonstrates the actions taken by the defendants against the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Copy of application submitted before RDO
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This application is part of the defendants' evidence.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This receipt is another piece of evidence related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Copy of notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This notice contains the RDO's directive concerning the property dispute.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Copy of Asset Register
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document contains details about the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.B6