Case Summary
Nazeema, the plaintiff, is the wife of the second defendant, Muhammed Kutty. The case is about a dispute involving property originally belonging to the defendants' father, where the plaintiff alleges encroachment by the first defendant.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove the case due to lack of cause of action against the first defendant. Consequently, the suit was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to establish any cause of action against the first defendant.
The plaintiff failed to establish any cause of action against the first defendant.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The court concluded that there is no cause of action against defendant no. 1 to institute this suit since he was not in station during the period of alleged cause of action.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence the suit is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nazeema
- Party Age
- 31
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Muhammed Kutty
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Aboobacker
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Settlement Deed No.2815/2005, Tax Receipt
Defendants Documents
Certified Copy of Judgment in OS.160/09, Certified Copy of Decree in OS.160/09, Certified Copy of Judgment in OS.189/10, Certified Copy of Decree in OS.189/10
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. C. Shanmughan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. K.A. Padmakumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to fill a ditch and restore the land area.
Evidence:
Hence the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction regarding the use of the property.
Evidence:
Hence the suit is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document establishes the claim made by the plaintiff regarding the transfer of property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document supports the plaintiff's ownership and claims regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Judgment
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This judgment is referenced regarding prior legal decisions impacting the current case.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Certified copy of decree
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This decree is relevant to the arguments made by the defendants concerning the use of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Judgment
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The judgment is pertinent to the history of disputes related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Certified copy of decree
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This decree is critical in determining the obligations of the parties as established in prior litigation.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Commissioner's Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The report provides a detailed assessment of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The plan supports the court's understanding of the property layout.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Commissioner's Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This additional report provides context and clarity on the layout and boundaries of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The plan further elucidates details pertaining to the disputes over the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C4
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 Nazeema vs Muhammed Kutty et al regarding mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Nazeema vs Muhammed Kutty et al regarding mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction.