Case Summary
The plaintiff, Surendran, has filed a suit against the defendants to restrain them from trespassing into the property and from demolishing a compound wall. The case was heard in the absence of the defendants, who were proceeded exparte.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and a mandatory injunction to restore the property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is decreed, restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and ordering them to restore the demolished portion of the eastern boundary compound wall.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The case of the plaintiff succeeds as the defendants remained absent and did not challenge the claims.
The case of the plaintiff succeeds as the defendants remained absent and did not challenge the claims.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The case of the plaintiff succeeds as the defendants remained absent and did not challenge the claims.
The case of the plaintiff succeeds as the defendants remained absent and did not challenge the claims.
Supporting Evidence
Since, the defendants are proceeded exparte the case of the plaintiff remain unchallenged and undisputed.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- MADATHIL MEETHALE VEETIL SURENDRAN
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- SATHEESAN
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- BALAN
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- SUHAIB
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Decree in IA 1299/1978, Assignment Deed No. 596/2000, Assignment Deed No. 730/2005, Assignment Deed No. 1223/2006, Sale Agreement, Basic Tax Receipt, Complaint to SI of Police.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Sunil K. L
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Restraint on the defendants from trespassing and altering the property.
Evidence:
The defendants, their men or agents are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and also to restrain the defendants from effecting alterations on the eastern portion of the plaint schedule property by demolishing the compound wall situated therein and from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Direction to restore the demolished portion of the compound wall.
Evidence:
A Mandatory Injunction is passed directing the defendants to restore the demolished portion situated on the eastern portion of the plaint schedule property which is the part of a compound wall and to restore the eastern boundary of the plaint schedule property into its original position within a period of one month from the date of judgment.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Decree
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Related to prior judgment affecting the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves ownership and assignment related to the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves ownership and assignment related to the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves ownership and assignment related to the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Sale Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demonstrates a transaction relevant to the ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves ongoing tax obligations and ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Complaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates prior grievances related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Provided details regarding the property examination by the commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commissioner’s Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Illustrates the layout and details vital for the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Further examination results relevant to the ownership dispute.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Surveyor plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Technical assessment and layout of the property in question.
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
Case between MADATHIL MEETHALE VEETIL SURENDRAN vs SATHEESAN et al regarding Permanent Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction
Case Code Year
Case between MADATHIL MEETHALE VEETIL SURENDRAN vs SATHEESAN et al regarding Permanent Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction