Case Summary
Saleena is the plaintiff seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against Ajeendran Alakandi and others. The case involves allegations of trespassing and attempts to alter the property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from destroying the compound wall.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit with costs, granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established a case in their favour and the defendants did not challenge it.
The plaintiff established a case in their favour and the defendants did not challenge it.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff established a case in their favour and the defendants did not challenge it.
The plaintiff established a case in their favour and the defendants did not challenge it.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has established a case in his favour. Since, the defendants are proceeded exparte, the case of the plaintiff stands unchallenged and undisputed.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- SALEENA
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- AJEENDRAN ALAKANDI
- Party Age
- 60
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- REJITHA RAJESH
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- KUTTIADY GRAMAPANCHAYATH
- Relation
- Represented by
Plaintiffs Documents
Basic Tax Receipt issued by Village Officer, Kuttiady to Kunhabdulla.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Abdul Latheef. V. K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Shabana. M. K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from destroying the compound wall.
Evidence:
The defendants, their men, agents and workers are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from destroying the compound wall situated on the northern portion of the plaint schedule property for the purpose of converting the northern portion as a road and also from altering the very nature of the plaint schedule property.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Basic Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The plaintiff used this document to establish ownership and possession of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court considered this document as part of the evidence supporting the plaintiff's claims.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Saleena vs Ajeendran Alakandi et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Saleena vs Ajeendran Alakandi et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.