Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Vattakandiyil Kamala and Vattakandiyil Babu @ Suresh Babu, are seeking mandatory and prohibitory injunctions against the defendants for alleged encroachment and illegal construction on their property. The defendants, including Binu, claim adherence to building rules and deny any encroachment.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for injunction.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to prove any act of trespass or encroachment from the side of the defendants.
The plaintiffs failed to prove any act of trespass or encroachment from the side of the defendants.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs failed to prove any act of trespass or encroachment from the side of the defendants.
The plaintiffs failed to prove any act of trespass or encroachment from the side of the defendants.
Supporting Evidence
the plaintiffs have failed to prove the fact that the construction of the building effected by the defendants are illegal constructions violating the Panchayath Rules without proper set backs encroaching into the plaint schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Vattakandiyil Kamala
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Vattakandiyil Babu @ Suresh Babu
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Binu
- Party Age
- 55
Plaintiffs Documents
Partition Deed No. 896/1993, Settlement Deed No. 848/2014, Building Tax Receipt, Possession Certificate, Building permit, Basic Tax Receipt, Ration Cards
Defendants Documents
Certificate issued by the Secretary, Building Age Certificate, Site approval and Building permit, Assignment Deed
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Krishnakumar. K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. C. R. Biju
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs sought an order to remove illegal constructions by the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs have failed to prove the fact that the construction of the building effected by the defendants are illegal constructions violating the Panchayath Rules.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs requested an order to prevent defendants from trespassing on the property.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs failed to prove any act of trespass or encroachment from the side of defendants.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the partition of property among the parties.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirms the gift of property from the 2nd plaintiff to the 1st plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates tax paid for the property in dispute.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Possession Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves possession of the property by the 2nd plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Building Permit
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Authorizes construction on the property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Basic Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows ongoing tax payments for the property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Ration Card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes identity and residence of the 2nd plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Ration Card
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes identity and residence of the 2nd plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Certificate
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Indicates the 1st defendant's status as a consumer.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Building age Certificate
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Confirms the age of the defendants' building.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Site Approval and Building Permit
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Grants permission for construction by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Shows transfer of property ownership to the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Basic Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Indicates tax payments made by the 1st defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Site Approval and Building Permit
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Further validates the legality of the defendants' construction.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Provides findings from the advocate commission regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commissioner's Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Illustrates the layout and details of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Details findings on a subsequent inspection of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type:
Surveyor plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Depicts the boundary and spatial relations of the properties.
Reference:
Ext.C4
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 Vattakandiyil Kamala vs Binu et al regarding mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Vattakandiyil Kamala vs Binu et al regarding mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction