Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Sidheequ, Muhammed Askar, and Pallath Aarifa, sought an injunction against the defendants, who were obstructing access to their property. The case was about the plaintiffs' right to a pathway they have used for over 100 years.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against interference with property access.
Case Type
Injunction
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them the injunction they sought against the defendants regarding the pathway. The plaintiffs were also entitled to recover costs from the defendants.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs proved their case by providing sufficient evidence of long-standing use and ownership rights to the pathway.
The plaintiffs proved their case by providing sufficient evidence of long-standing use and ownership rights to the pathway.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs proved their case by providing sufficient evidence of long-standing use and ownership rights to the pathway.
The plaintiffs proved their case by providing sufficient evidence of long-standing use and ownership rights to the pathway.
Supporting Evidence
Since the defendant did not file written statement, the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs remained unchallenged. 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. The defendant and his men are restrained, by way of permanent prohibitory injunction, from interfering with the peaceable possession and enjoyment of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sidheequ
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Muhammed Askar
- Party Age
- 34
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Pallath Aarifa
- Party Age
- 26
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Thami
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Krishnan
- Party Age
- 49
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ayyappan
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rajan
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Damodharan
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copies of Kanam Assignment Deeds No.2929/2015, No.2762/2014, No.2761/2014; Purchase Certificates No.120/2018, No.118/2018, No.588/2018; Tax Receipts.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P.Praveen
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. S.Hariharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
To restrain the defendant and his men from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of their properties.
Evidence:
the defendant and his men are restrained, by way of permanent prohibitory injunction, from interfering with the peaceable possession and enjoyment of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties.
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:
Kanam Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document establishing property rights for plaintiff No. 1.
Reference:
Exbt.A1
Document Type:
Kanam Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document establishing property rights for plaintiff No. 2.
Reference:
Exbt.A2
Document Type:
Kanam Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document establishing property rights for plaintiff No. 3.
Reference:
Exbt.A3
Document Type:
Purchase Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Legal certification of ownership of property for plaintiff No. 1.
Reference:
Exbt.A4
Document Type:
Purchase Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Legal certification of ownership of property for plaintiff No. 2.
Reference:
Exbt.A5
Document Type:
Purchase Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Legal certification of ownership of property for plaintiff No. 3.
Reference:
Exbt.A6
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of tax payments related to the properties owned by plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A7 to A9
Document Type:
Commission Report and Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Evidence related to the commissioner's findings in a previous related case.
Reference:
Ext.A10
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 Sidheequ, Muhammed Askar, Pallath Aarifa vs Thami et al regarding Injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Sidheequ, Muhammed Askar, Pallath Aarifa vs Thami et al regarding Injunction