Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Vinod Krishnan's son and Anil Kumar's son, have filed a suit against the defendants Narayanan kutty and others for injunction regarding the property that has been used as a water channel. The plaintiffs claim the property belongs to their family and the defendants sought to widen the channel, which the plaintiffs opposed.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The defendants and their men are restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and widening the water channel by encroaching upon the plaint schedule property.
Case Type
Injunction
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit favoring the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaintiffs' property and widening the water channel. The plaintiffs are entitled to recover costs from the defendants.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs provided unchallenged evidence supporting their claim to the property.
The plaintiffs provided unchallenged evidence supporting their claim to the property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs provided unchallenged evidence supporting their claim to the property.
The plaintiffs provided unchallenged evidence supporting their claim to the property.
Supporting Evidence
Therefore, I am satisfied that the plaintiff have proved his case by adducing cogent and reliable evidence.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1. The defendants and their men are restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and widening the water channel by encroaching upon the plaint schedule property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Visanth
- Party Age
- 32
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Binu
- Party Age
- 26
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Narayanan kutty
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vijayaraghavan
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ayyappan
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Prajith.K.
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Partition Deed Doc. No.1426/1970
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Sara.K.P.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Mujeeb Rahiman.V.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendants and their men are restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and widening the water channel.
Evidence:
the defendants and their men are restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction, from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and widening the water channel by encroaching upon the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff is entitled to realize the costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is entitled to realize the costs of the suit from the defendants.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document establishes the ownership of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court marked this document for reference during the proceedings.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court marked this document for reference during the proceedings.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Injunction
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between Kundooli Pallipurath Kalathil Vinod Krishnan's son et al vs Narayanan kutty et al regarding injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Kundooli Pallipurath Kalathil Vinod Krishnan's son et al vs Narayanan kutty et al regarding injunction