Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 300 OF 2018

Case between Sidheequ, Muhammed Askar, Pallath Aarifa vs Thami et al regarding Injunction

Court
IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF TIRUR
Judge
Sri. Jankish Narayanan
Order Date
2019-10-31
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

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

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
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.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against interference with property access.
Case Type
Injunction
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs proved their case by providing sufficient evidence of long-standing use and ownership rights to the pathway.

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

Plaintiffs

Sidheequ (54 years) Thirunnavaya amsom Thiruthi desom, Tirur Taluk Muhammed Askar (34 years) Thriprangode amsom Kaimalassery desom, Tirur Taluk Pallath Aarifa (26 years) Thirunnavaya amsom Thiruthidesom, Tirur Taluk

Defendants

Thami (52 years) Thirunnavaya amsom, Thiruthi desom, Tirur Taluk Krishnan (49 years) Ayyappan (72 years) Rajan (52 years) Damodharan (50 years)

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

Quick Facts

Location
Tirur
Case Filed
Thu, 10/17/2019 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases