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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 42 OF 2014

Case between Suhara vs Ameer Faizal et al regarding fixation of boundary, mandatory injunction, and recovery of possession

Court
MUNSIFF COURT OF TIRUR
Judge
Smt. VINCY.T.V.
Order Date
2018-03-17
Duration
4 years 16 days

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Involves Suhara suing Ameer Faizal et al for boundary fixation, mandatory injunction, and recovery of possession. Plaintiff claims ownership of a property purchased from Abdulla, facing disputes over boundaries and rights of way.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit was dismissed as plaintiff failed to prove title over the disputed property.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Original Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to prove title over the property in dispute.

Judgment Evidence:

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Suhara (32 years years) Porur Desom, Post Pookkayil Bazar, Tirur Taluk Kunnthedath Thettammal Najeemudheen (40 years years) Porur Desom, Post Pookkayil Bazar, Tirur Taluk

Defendants

Ameer Faizal (41 years years) Porur Desom, Post Pookkayil Bazar, Tirur Taluk Abdul Kalam (47 years years) Tirur Amsom, Porur Desom, Tirur Taluk Muhammed Kassim (45 years years) Tirur Amsom, Porur Desom, Tirur Taluk Muhammed Rafeekh (38 years years) Tirur Amsom, Porur Desom, Tirur Taluk Firoz (35 years years) Tirur Amsom, Porur Desom, Tirur Taluk

Reliefs

Relief Type: Fixation of Boundary
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff's claim for fixing the boundary of the property
Evidence:
Court found insufficient evidence to support boundary fixation
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff's plea for a mandatory injunction to demolish defendant's wall
Evidence:
Insufficient evidence provided by plaintiff to support the injunction
Relief Type: Recovery of Possession
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Plaintiff's request for recovery of possession of property
Evidence:
Defendant's possession was deemed legal based on evidence presented

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Jenm Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document showing transfer of property from Abdulla to plaintiff's mother-in-law
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Jenm Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document showing transfer of property to plaintiff
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Complaint Copy
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of complaint to SI regarding construction of compound wall by defendant
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the assignment deed related to the property
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of partition deed related to the property
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Report by the advocate commissioner regarding inspection of property
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Sketch submitted by the advocate commissioner
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Commission sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Sketch showing property details by the advocate commissioner
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Report by advocate commissioner stating inability to identify the property
Reference:
Ext.C4
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Report by advocate commissioner regarding property details
Reference:
Ext.C5
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Report by advocate commissioner on inspection of the property
Reference:
Ext.C6

Quick Facts

Location
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases