Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 326 OF 2011

Case between Nazeema vs Muhammed Kutty et al regarding mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF TIRUR
Judge
Smt. VINCY.T.V.
Order Date
2017-02-07
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

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

Defendant Won
Interim Order
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.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to establish any cause of action against the first defendant.

Judgment Evidence:

Hence the suit is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Nazeema (31 years years) Karekkad Desom, Tirur Taluk.

Defendants

Muhammed Kutty (45 years years) Alungal Veedu, Melmuri Amsom, Karekkad Desom, Tirur Taluk. Aboobacker (38 years years) Alungal Veedu, Melmuri Amsom, Karekkad Desom, Tirur Taluk.

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

Quick Facts

Location
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
100%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases