Case Summary
The plaintiffs, children of Kunhikammu Haji, are suing the defendants for encroaching on their property. The case involves a request for an injunction against the defendants who have trespassed and attempted to construct a road on the plaintiffs' property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Mandatory injunction to reclaim the B schedule property and permanent prohibitory injunction against further encroachment and construction.
Case Type
Injunction
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed that the defendants must return the encroached property to its original state and are prohibited from trespassing or constructing a road through the plaintiffs’ property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs proved their case by presenting cogent and reliable evidence.
The plaintiffs proved their case by presenting cogent and reliable evidence.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs proved their case by presenting cogent and reliable evidence.
The plaintiffs proved their case by presenting cogent and reliable evidence.
Supporting Evidence
Since the defendants remained ex parte, the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs remained unchallenged. I find no reason to disbelieve PW1. Therefore, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have proved their case by adducing cogent and reliable evidence.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows. I. The defendants are directed by way of mandatory injunction to reclaim the B schedule property to its original position. II. The defendants and their men are restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction, from trespassing into the plaint A and B schedule properties and also from interfering with the peaceable possession and enjoyment of the properties, by the plaintiff.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Safiya
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mariyamu
- Party Age
- 41
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Rosna
- Party Age
- 39
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ayiniparambil Sidheekh
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ammengara Pradeep
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Partition Deed No. 491/2017, Complaint to the Tirur Police, Sketch of the plaint A schedule property.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. C.Nandakumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Sanku.T.Das
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are directed to reclaim the B schedule property to its original position.
Evidence:
The defendants are directed by way of mandatory injunction to reclaim the B schedule property to its original position.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants and their men are restrained from trespassing into the plaint A and B schedule properties.
Evidence:
The defendants and their men are restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction, from trespassing into the plaint A and B schedule properties.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are restrained from constructing a road through the plaint B schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendants and their men are further restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction, from constructing road through the plaint B schedule property.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff is entitled to realize the costs of the suit from the defendant.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is entitled to realize the costs of the suit from the defendant.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document establishing the ownership and shares of the plaintiffs in the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Complaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Complaint submitted to the police about the defendants' trespass.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Sketch showing the layout and extent of the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Another report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type:
Commission Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Another plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.C4
Case Classification
Case Type
Injunction
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Safiya et al vs Ayiniparambil Sidheekh et al regarding Injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Safiya et al vs Ayiniparambil Sidheekh et al regarding Injunction