Case Summary
Plaintiff sought mandatory and prohibitory injunction against the defendant to prevent trespassing and demolition of property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Perpetual injunction
Case Type
Civil Suit - Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction
Final Judgment
No
The court granted a perpetual injunction to prevent the defendant from entering and interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
Plaintiff provided cogent and reliable evidence of ownership and possession of the property, leading to the grant of injunction.
Plaintiff provided cogent and reliable evidence of ownership and possession of the property, leading to the grant of injunction.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Plaintiff provided cogent and reliable evidence of ownership and possession of the property, leading to the grant of injunction.
Plaintiff provided cogent and reliable evidence of ownership and possession of the property, leading to the grant of injunction.
Supporting Evidence
Though the plaintiff has got a contention that the defendant constructed a compound wall trespassing into the plaint A schedule item No.1 property, there is nothing in Ext.C3 and Ext.C4 to show that the defendant constructed any compound wall trespassing into the plaint A schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
Therefore plaintiff is not entitled to get a mandatory injunction as claimed in the suit. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to get a perpetual injunction as prayed for.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Manakkattu thodi Muhammed Sahal
- Party Age
- 28
- Relation
- S/o Kunhahammed
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Manakkattu thodi Endeen Kutty
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o Kunhahammed
Plaintiffs Documents
Jenm Assignment Deed No. 1047/1997, Jenm Assignment Deed No.2384/2006, Tax Receipts
Defendants Documents
Not available
Advocates
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Partly Granted
Description:
Perpetual injunction against defendant entering the property and interfering with plaintiff's possession and enjoyment.
Evidence:
The suit is decreed in part as follows:- 1. The defendant and his men are restrained by a perpetual injunction from entering into the plaint schedule property and interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Jenm Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidencing property purchase 28 years ago
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of tax payment for the property
Reference:
Ext.A3, Ext.A4
Document Type:
Commissioner's Report, Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Boundary inspection and plan
Reference:
Ext.C1, Ext.C2, Ext.C3, Ext.C4
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit - Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction
Category
Injunction and Access Rights
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Property boundary dispute
Case Code
Case between Manakkattu thodi Muhammed Sahal et al vs Manakkattu thodi Endeen Kutty regarding injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Manakkattu thodi Muhammed Sahal et al vs Manakkattu thodi Endeen Kutty regarding injunction