Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS 47/2025

Case between Sheeba vs Raveendran et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and for damages.

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Judge
Sri. Yadukrishnan. B
Order Date
2025-11-28
Duration
Case Code No.
47
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves a dispute between Sheeba and Raveendran along with another party regarding the property boundaries and entry points related to plaint A, B, and C schedule properties. The petitioners/defendants are challenging the Advocate commissioner's report, saying it contains errors and does not accurately reflect their property access.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the petition filed by the defendants to remit the commission report and plan, stating there was no dispute over the identity of the plaint schedule properties.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the petition filed by the defendants to remit the commission report and plan, stating there was no dispute over the identity of the plaint schedule properties.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
Supporting Evidence

Judgment Evidence:

Hence, in the light of discussions, the petition is only to be dismissed with costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
SREEJA
Party Age
47
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
SHEEBA
Party Age
44
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
RAVEENDRAN
Party Age
51
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
K. Sivadas
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
M. Siju
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Request to measure the plaint A, B, and C schedule property with a Taluk Surveyor.
Evidence:
Therefore, plaint A, B and C schedule property has to be measured by the Advocate commissioner with assistance of a Taluk Surveyor to understand the real nature of dispute.
Relief Type: Damages
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Claim for damages related to the petition.
Evidence:
This is a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and for damages.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Commissioner Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The court referred to the Advocate commissioner's report and plan to assess the property boundaries.
Reference:
null

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS
Case Code Year
2025

Quick Facts

Location
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Mon, 09/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 12/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between CHANDRAN vs SECRETARY et al regarding petition dismissal for default
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between N. P. PADMAKUMAR et al vs KASTHURIKUNI MOIDU HAJI et al regarding reopening evidence.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between KOMBIYULLATHIL THAZHAKUNIYIL ALTHAF vs KURUNNAM VEETTIL ABDULLA et al regarding issuance of summons
IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Meethale Arayammal Ismayil vs Kokkandiyeri Mahamood regarding setting aside of an ex parte decree.
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between JANU vs BAHULEYAN @ BABU regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, NADAPURAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won