Case Summary
The plaintiff, Safir K M, is seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants Kunjumohamed alias Kunjammu and his son Naseef, alleging trespass and damage to property originally owned by late K.K. Mohammed Haji. The defendants have denied these allegations.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction and costs of the suit
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established his case with unchallenged oral and documentary evidence substantiating his claims of ownership and the defendants' trespass.
The plaintiff established his case with unchallenged oral and documentary evidence substantiating his claims of ownership and the defendants' trespass.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed on the following terms. 1) Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from encroaching into plaint schedule properties and from cutting and removing the trees standing there and from making any illegal works in the property and from committing wastes and from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff and other co-owners. 2) Defendants are directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiff.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Safir K M (63 years)
Kallupurakkal House, Pipeline Road, Thrikkakkara P O, Ernakulam, Pin - 682 021
Defendants
Kunjumohamed alias Kunjammu (70 years)
Kannoth House, Unnichira, Changampuzha Nagar P O, Kochi - 33
Naseef (30 years)
Kannoth House, Unnichira, Changampuzha Nagar P O, Kochi - 33
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are restrained from encroaching into plaint schedule properties and from cutting and removing trees.
Evidence:
Defendants are restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from encroaching into plaint schedule properties and from cutting and removing the trees standing there.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are directed to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
Evidence:
Defendants are directed to pay costs of the suit to plaintiff.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of sale deed No. 151/1990 of Edappally SRO confirming the plaintiff's claim over the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Partition deed No. 3254/1986 of Edappally SRO relevant to the ownership and claim over the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Basic tax receipt No. KL 07021805486/2025 dated 01.04.2025 verifying the plaintiff's ownership and responsibility for the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report confirming the boundaries and conditions of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1