Case Summary
The plaintiff, Palattummal Illyas.P.A, sought mandatory injunction, permanent prohibitory injunction, and damages from the defendants, Kannamkulathil Ranjini and Chengathazhath Nalini, regarding the occupation of property used for running a readymade shop. The dispute arose over arrears in license fees and the termination of the license agreement.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Mandatory injunction to vacate the plaint schedule property and restraining defendants from trespassing into the property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to vacate the plaint schedule property and awarding damages for use and occupation.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff proved ownership of the plaint schedule property and the validity of the termination of the license agreement.
The plaintiff proved ownership of the plaint schedule property and the validity of the termination of the license agreement.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff proved ownership of the plaint schedule property and the validity of the termination of the license agreement.
The plaintiff proved ownership of the plaint schedule property and the validity of the termination of the license agreement.
Supporting Evidence
The ownership of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property is not in dispute. The plaintiff has stated that the agreement was executed by the first defendant on behalf of the second defendant as well. Hence, as per the admitted license agreement, the first defendant is a licensee of the building.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1. The defendant No 1 and 2 are hereby directed by way of a mandatory injunction to vacate plaint schedule property within a period of one month from today failing which the plaintiff can execute the order by the process of the court.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Palattummal Illyas.P.A
- Party Age
- 46
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Thadathil Haris
- Party Age
- 56
- Relation
- P.A Holder
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kannamkulathil Ranjini
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Chengathazhath Nalini
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Licence agreements A1 and A2, notices A3 and A4, power of attorney A5, settlement deed A6.
Defendants Documents
Copy of Lawyer notice B1.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Janil John
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Vijisha M.P
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P. S Murali
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Shemie Jithin
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. K. P Gangadharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendant No 1 and 2 are directed to vacate the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendants are hereby directed by way of a mandatory injunction to vacate plaint schedule property within a period of one month from today.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants shall be restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property after surrendering the building.
Evidence:
After surrendering the building, the defendants shall be restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Damages
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff is entitled to Rs.5445/- per month as damages for use and occupation from the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiff shall be entitled to realize Rs.5445/- per month as damages for use and occupation from the defendants.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
License Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Executed license agreement between plaintiff and defendants for using the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
License Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Latest license agreement executed between Thadathil Haris (P.A Holder) and the first defendant for a specified period.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice sent to the defendants demanding vacation of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Postal Acknowledgment Card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Postal acknowledgment card related to the lawyer notice.
Reference:
Ext.A3(a)
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Postal receipts related to the lawyer notice.
Reference:
Ext.A3(b), Ext.A3(c)
Document Type:
Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Reply notice issued by the second defendant in response to the plaintiff's notice.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Power of attorney document empowering Thadathil Haris to act on behalf of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the deed establishing the ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of lawyer notice issued by the first defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Postal Acknowledgment Card
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Postal acknowledgment cards related to the lawyer notice issued by the first defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B1(a), Ext.B1(b)
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Postal receipts related to the lawyer notice.
Reference:
Ext.B1(c)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Palattummal Illyas.P.A vs Kannamkulathil Ranjini et al regarding mandatory injunction, permanent prohibitory injunction and realization of damages for use and occupation.
Case Code Year
Case between Palattummal Illyas.P.A vs Kannamkulathil Ranjini et al regarding mandatory injunction, permanent prohibitory injunction and realization of damages for use and occupation.