Case Summary
Plaintiff Sakkeena sought a mandatory injunction to recover possession of a building from the defendant and claim damages for unauthorized occupation.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Mandatory injunction to vacate the building and damages for use and occupation
Case Type
Civil Suit - Mandatory injunction and damages
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed that the defendant must vacate the building within one month and pay damages for use and occupation to the plaintiff.
Why Plaintiff Won:
In this case, the license is already revoked. When the defendant failed to vacate the room even after revocation of license granted by the owner of the property, the owner is entitled to file a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the property.
In this case, the license is already revoked. When the defendant failed to vacate the room even after revocation of license granted by the owner of the property, the owner is entitled to file a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
In this case, the license is already revoked. When the defendant failed to vacate the room even after revocation of license granted by the owner of the property, the owner is entitled to file a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the property.
In this case, the license is already revoked. When the defendant failed to vacate the room even after revocation of license granted by the owner of the property, the owner is entitled to file a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the property.
Supporting Evidence
Plaintiff is the owner of the petition schedule building. The plaintiff permitted the defendant to occupy the plaint schedule building as licensee on condition to pay license fee at Rs.1,000/- per month.
Judgment Evidence:
Suit for mandatory injunction and realization of damages for use and occupation.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sakkeena
- Party Age
- 41
- Relation
- Wife of Thayyil Siddeekh
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Parambil Abdul Kareem
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- S/o. Parambil Beevi Umma
Plaintiffs Documents
Janam Assignment Deed (Ext.A1), Settlement Deed (Ext.A2), Property tax receipts, Basic tax receipt
Defendants Documents
Not available
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. V. Chandrasekharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Vipin Chandrasekhar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. M.K. Moosakutty
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Directing the defendant to vacate the building
Evidence:
Plaintiff permitted the defendant to occupy the building as licensee on condition to pay license fee.
Relief Type:
Damages for Use and Occupation
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Realization of damages at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month from 01-06-2015
Evidence:
Plaintiff suffered loss due to defendants' act of not giving vacant possession.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Janam Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of ownership
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document regarding settlement
Reference:
Ext.A2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit - Mandatory injunction and damages
Category
Injunction and Access Rights
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between Sakkeena vs Parambil Abdul Kareem regarding mandatory injunction and realization of damages
Case Code Year
Case between Sakkeena vs Parambil Abdul Kareem regarding mandatory injunction and realization of damages