Case Summary
Moidu is the plaintiff seeking a mandatory and prohibitory injunction against Vasudevan Nair and others. The dispute revolves around alleged excavation by the defendants that has affected the lateral support of the plaintiff's property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit with costs, ruling that the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary grounds for the injunction sought against the defendants.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff did not prove that the properties were adjacent or that the defendants had any obligation to provide lateral support.
The plaintiff did not prove that the properties were adjacent or that the defendants had any obligation to provide lateral support.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff did not prove that the properties were adjacent or that the defendants had any obligation to provide lateral support.
The plaintiff did not prove that the properties were adjacent or that the defendants had any obligation to provide lateral support.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has failed to prove that the plaint schedule property situates adjacent to the defendant property and the defendants' property is bound to provide lateral support to the plaint schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Moidu
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vasudevan Nair
- Party Age
- 64
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sreeja
- Party Age
- 35
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mani
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- H/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ramachandran Nair
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kuttikrishnan Nair
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Partition Deed No. 2234/1990, Tax Receipt dated 28-04-2012, Tax Receipt dated 04-05-2012
Defendants Documents
Report submitted before RDO, Tirur by Tahasildar, Tax Receipt dated 20-06-2017, Certified copy of Report submitted before RDO, Tirur, Certified copy of Complaint submitted before Chief Minister, Certified copy of Complaint submitted before Revenue Minister.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. M. A. Ismail
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. C.A. Veeramani
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against further excavation by the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document establishes the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document supports the plaintiff's ownership and liability related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document supports the plaintiff's ownership and liability related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Report
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The report provides evidence regarding the condition of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The document supports the defendant's claims regarding property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Photographs
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The photographs provide visual evidence related to the property dispute.
Reference:
Ext.B3 (Series)
Document Type:
Certified copy of Report
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The report supports the defendant's position regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Certified copy of complaint
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The document provides context to the defendant's defense.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Certified copy of complaint
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The document provides context to the defendant's defense.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The report details findings about the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The plan illustrates the layout of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Geologist's report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The report provides expert opinion on the excavation's impact on the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type:
Interim Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The report discusses interim findings related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.C4
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The report provides follow-up findings about the property condition.
Reference:
Ext.C5
Document Type:
Commission Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The plan visually supports the findings regarding the property layout.
Reference:
Ext.C6
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Moidu vs Vasudevan Nair et al regarding mandatory injunction and perpetual prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Moidu vs Vasudevan Nair et al regarding mandatory injunction and perpetual prohibitory injunction.