Case Summary
Plaintiff Aboobakker filed suit seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants to prevent obstruction of a right of way to access his properties.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Perpetual injunction against trespassing and obstruction of gate construction
Case Type
Civil Suit - Permanent Injunction
Final Judgment
No
The court granted a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing the plaintiff's property or obstructing the construction of a gate.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff proved ownership and exclusive possession of the combined plot with boundary walls and demonstrated the necessity for the gate to protect their family.
The plaintiff proved ownership and exclusive possession of the combined plot with boundary walls and demonstrated the necessity for the gate to protect their family.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff proved ownership and exclusive possession of the combined plot with boundary walls and demonstrated the necessity for the gate to protect their family.
The plaintiff proved ownership and exclusive possession of the combined plot with boundary walls and demonstrated the necessity for the gate to protect their family.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff adduced unchallenged evidence to prove their case convincingly.
Judgment Evidence:
The plaintiff proved his case with cogent and reliable evidence.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- PuthanPurayil Aboobakker
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- S/o. Late Ajjootty
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Koottath Saharoob
- Party Age
- 21
- Relation
- S/o. Muhammed
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Koottath Shuhaib
- Party Age
- 19
- Relation
- S/o. Muhammed
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Koottath Ali
- Party Age
- 32
- Relation
- S/o. Saidali
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Koottath Ansar
- Party Age
- 22
- Relation
- S/o. Hamza
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Koottath Raisabi
- Party Age
- 24
- Relation
- S/o. Sulaikha
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Koottath Nisha
- Party Age
- 26
- Relation
- D/o. Sulaikha
Plaintiffs Documents
Jenm Assignment deed No.717/2014, Land assignment rules Asst. No.3420/B2, Land Tribunal purchase certificate etc.
Defendants Documents
Not available
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. K. Ramachamdran
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- E.K. Noushad
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Prohibitory injunction against trespass and obstruction of gate construction
Evidence:
The plaintiff proved his case with cogent and reliable evidence.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants ordered to pay the costs of suits
Evidence:
Not clearly mentioned
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Jenm Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of ownership of property
Reference:
No.717/2014
Document Type:
Land Assignment Rules Order
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Documentation of land assignment rules
Reference:
Asst. No.3420/B2 & 3420/2007
Document Type:
Purchase Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of property acquisition
Reference:
Dated 5.12.2007
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supporting document for possession
Reference:
Photocopy, 28-04-2016
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Findings submitted by the commissioner
Reference:
13-03-2017
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Sketch denoting property boundaries
Reference:
13-03-2017
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit - Permanent injunction
Category
Injunction and Access Rights
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Property ownership dispute
Case Code
Case between PuthanPurayil Aboobakker vs Koottath Saharoob et al regarding permanent injunction
Case Code Year
Case between PuthanPurayil Aboobakker vs Koottath Saharoob et al regarding permanent injunction