ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 168 OF 2016

Case between Kunhimoideen vs Muhammed et al regarding boundary fixation and injunction

Court
Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Judge
Smt. VINCY.T.V., B.A, LL.B.
Order Date
2017-05-25
Duration
Approximately 1 year
Case Closed
Thu, 05/25/2017 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Plaintiff Kunhimoideen filed a suit against defendants Muhammed, Fathima, Rayinkuttikkanakath Hamza, and Kunhayishu seeking fixation of boundary and injunction.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit was dismissed with costs as the plaintiff was absent and no representation was made.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Dismissal of the suit with costs
Case Type
Civil Suit - Boundary Fixation and Injunction
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed with costs as the plaintiff was absent and no representation was made.
Key Reasoning:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Why Defendant Won:
Reason not clearly mentioned
Supporting Evidence
Not available

Judgment Evidence:

The counsel for the plaintiff reported no instruction from the client. Name of plaintiff was called absent. No representation. Hence suit is dismissed with costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Valappil Vadakkekalathil Kunhimoideen
Party Age
56
Relation
S/o. Hamza
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Muhammed @ Kunhippa
Party Age
60
Relation
S/o. Hamza
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Fathima
Party Age
60
Relation
W/o. Muhammed @ Kunhippa, D/o. Maravath Valappil Muhammed
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Rayinkuttikkanakath Hamza
Party Age
75
Relation
S/o. Kunhimuhammed
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Kunhayishu
Party Age
67
Relation
W/o. Rayinkuttikanakath Hamza, D/o. Kuruvayil Entheen
Plaintiffs Documents
Not mentioned
Defendants Documents
Not mentioned

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
S. Hariharan
Appearance Type
Unknown
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
M. Arunkumar
Appearance Type
Unknown
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Majeed Kalappattil
Appearance Type
Unknown

Reliefs

Relief Type: Boundary Fixation
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Seeking fixation of boundary
Evidence:
Not mentioned
Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Seeking injunction relief
Evidence:
Not mentioned

Documents & Evidence

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit - Boundary Fixation and Injunction
Category
Injunction and Access Rights
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Boundary Dispute
Case Code
Case between Kunhimoideen vs Muhammed et al regarding boundary fixation and injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Kunhimoideen vs Muhammed et al regarding boundary fixation and injunction

Quick Facts

Location
Tirur
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Case Filed
Wed, 05/25/2016 - 12:00
Case Closed
Thu, 05/25/2017 - 12:00
From
Mon, 05/01/2017 - 12:00
To
Wed, 05/31/2017 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Vadkumpurath Palliyalil Santhakumari et al vs Thudimmal Abbas et al regarding boundary fixation and injunction
Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Civil Suit - Boundary Fixation and Injunction Dismissed
Case between Alamchambattu Bava Haji vs Abdul Rasheed et al regarding boundary fixation and injunction
Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Civil Suit - Boundary Fixation and Injunction Defendant Won
Case between Eingapadalil Kadeeja et al vs Chenganakattil Abdurahiman et al regarding boundary fixation and injunction
Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Civil Suit - Boundary Fixation and Injunction Defendant Won
Case between Kacheri Kallichath Ismail et al vs Pathumma et al regarding boundary fixation and injunction
Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Civil Suit - Boundary Fixation and Injunction Plaintiff Won
Case between Ayisha vs Kadeejakkutty et al regarding boundary fixation and injunction
Court of the Munsiff of Tirur
Civil Suit - Boundary Fixation and Injunction Plaintiff Won