Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Kurunnanveettil Usman and Safiya, filed a petition to address issues with the measurement and marking of properties as per previous court orders. The defendants, Kurunnanveettil Moideen et al, contest these claims, asserting that the commissioner has adequately marked the relevant properties.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the petition for the advocate commissioner to further index and mark the relevant properties as per previous orders.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found that the advocate commissioner failed to comply with prior orders relating to property measurements.
The court found that the advocate commissioner failed to comply with prior orders relating to property measurements.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found that the advocate commissioner failed to comply with prior orders relating to property measurements.
The court found that the advocate commissioner failed to comply with prior orders relating to property measurements.
Supporting Evidence
The advocate commissioner has failed to index the same as per the commission report submitted by him.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, IA 16/2025 is allowed and for compliance within 12 days from the date of this order.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Kurunnanveettil Usman
- Party Age
- 50
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Kurunnanveettil Safiya
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- W/o. Usman
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kurunnanveettil Moideen
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- S/o. Kunhavulla
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kurunnanveettil Kunhipathu
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- D/o. Moideen
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kurunnanveettil Basheer
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- S/o. Moideen
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kurunnanveettil Hajira
- Party Age
- 35
- Relation
- W/o. Basheer
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Muhammad
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- S/o. Late Moideen
Plaintiffs Documents
Commission report dated 27.09.2023
Defendants Documents
Objections from respondents filed against the petition.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. K. K. Anil Raj
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Fareed Kalleri
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. N. M. Rajagopal
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. C. R. Biju
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The petition is allowed and the commissioner is directed to index the plaint properties.
Evidence:
Hence, the petition is allowed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Commission Report and Plans
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court remitted the commission report and plans for indexing the plaint schedule properties.
Reference:
null
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
2016