Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Raman and others, are seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, Premi and others, to prevent them from trespassing on their property and forming a way through it. The defendants claim that there is a public way that leads through the plaintiffs' property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from trespassing on their property. The defendants' counter-claim was dismissed.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs were in possession of the plaint schedule property and established their apprehension of trespass by the defendants.
The plaintiffs were in possession of the plaint schedule property and established their apprehension of trespass by the defendants.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs were in possession of the plaint schedule property and established their apprehension of trespass by the defendants.
The plaintiffs were in possession of the plaint schedule property and established their apprehension of trespass by the defendants.
Supporting Evidence
It is crystal clear that the defendants trespassed into the plaint schedule property and attempted to create a way through the same.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the defendants, their men and agents are restrained by decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, forming a way through the same, altering the boundaries of the plaint schedule property and committing water therein. The counter claim is dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Raman
- Party Age
- 78
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Kalyani
- Party Age
- 71
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Vasantha
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Rajan
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Shobhana
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Premi
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Priya
- Party Age
- 36
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Pramod
- Party Age
- 25
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Lakshmi
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Kanam deed No.11/1969, Deed No.2183/2002, Deed No.1570/2012, Deed No.1518/2012, Tax receipts
Defendants Documents
GST invoice of Indian Surgical and Medical.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.P.K.Sreekumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Manjeri Sundar Raj
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs are granted a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from trespassing.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs who are in possession of the plaint schedule property are entitled to a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction as their apprehension is well proved.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Not Decided
Description:
Defendants sought a decree of mandatory injunction to remove the obstruction.
Evidence:
The defendants are not entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Kaanam Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves ownership of the plaint schedule property by plaintiffs No 1 and 2.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the deed supporting the claims of the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the transfer of property from plaintiffs No 1 and 2 to fourth plaintiff Rajan.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Details transfer from plaintiffs No 1 and 2 to third plaintiff Vasantha.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further evidence of property transfers related to the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supports the ownership claims of the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
True copy of the plan issued by Chathamangalam Panchayath related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates the tax paid for the property, supporting the ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A8 series
Document Type:
Photograph
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Photographic evidence submitted by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Bill
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Invoice related to defendant's claims.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Report confirming the current state and boundaries of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Plan by Advocate Commissioner showing property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
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 Raman et al vs Premi et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Raman et al vs Premi et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction