Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
ORIGINAL SUIT NO : 405/2024

Case between Aparna Govindan vs Iqubal regarding mandatory injunction and damages for use and occupation of property

Court
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I
Judge
Smt. Shabeena M.
Order Date
2025-08-26
Duration
approximately-1 year 5 months
Case Closed
Tue, 08/26/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Aparna Govindan, filed a suit against the defendant, Iqubal, for mandatory injunction and damages due to the non-payment of license fees for a commercial property. The defendant failed to vacate the premises despite the termination of the license agreement.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The suit is decreed, directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule premises and pay the plaintiff arrears of license fees and damages for unlawful occupation.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Mandatory injunction to vacate the premises and payment of arrears and damages.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is decreed, directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule premises and pay the plaintiff arrears of license fees and damages for unlawful occupation.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff provided unchallenged evidence regarding the breach of the license agreement by the defendant, resulting in entitlement for the damages claimed.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff provided unchallenged evidence regarding the breach of the license agreement by the defendant, resulting in entitlement for the damages claimed.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence of PW1 and the documents produced by him remained unchallenged. As such I find that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule premises.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1) The defendant is directed by a mandatory injunction to vacate the plaint schedule shop room within one month from today.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Aparna Govindan
Party Age
48
Relation
W/o.
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Iqubal
Relation
S/o.
Plaintiffs Documents
Power of Attorney executed by Aparna Govindan in favour of Sivaprasad S., License Agreement executed between Aparna Govindan and Iqubal, Copy of lawyer notice sent to Iqubal.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
P.S. Murali
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Shemie Jithin
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Anjana P.K.
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Nivedita Muchilote
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendant directed to vacate the plaint schedule shop room.
Evidence:
The defendant is directed by a mandatory injunction to vacate the plaint schedule shop room within one month from today.
Relief Type: Damages
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendant liable to pay arrears of license fee.
Evidence:
The defendant is liable to pay Rs.21,000/- towards the arrears of license fee with 12% interest per annum.
Relief Type: Damages
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendant liable to pay damages for unlawful use and occupation.
Evidence:
The defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.23,000/- per month as damages for unlawful use and occupation from the date of suit.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff entitled to recover costs of the suit.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is also entitled to realise the costs of the suit.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Produced to establish the authority of the witness representing the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: License Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Executed agreement that demonstrates the terms under which the defendant occupied the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: License Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Another version of the license agreement further substantiating the plaintiff's claims.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates the notice sent to the defendant regarding the termination of the license agreement.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of sending the lawyer notice to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A4(a)
Document Type: Returned Envelope
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demonstrates that the notice sent to the defendant was not received.
Reference:
Ext.A5

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Aparna Govindan vs Iqubal regarding mandatory injunction and damages for use and occupation of property
Case Code Year
Case between Aparna Govindan vs Iqubal regarding mandatory injunction and damages for use and occupation of property

Quick Facts

Location
Kozhikode
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Case Filed
Fri, 03/01/2024 - 12:00
Case Closed
Tue, 08/26/2025 - 12:00
From
Tue, 07/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Tue, 09/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Canara Bank vs M/S U.B. Hardwares regarding suit dismissal
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sujith K.M. vs P. Chandramathi @ Chandrika et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Panakkal Mammedkoya vs Fabir et al regarding partition
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Kalarikandy Subash Babu (died), Durga Devi, Bindya, Sandya vs Kasthuri Bai, Ramani Bai regarding partition of property.
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF - I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Moideen.V.P vs Pathumma et al regarding setting aside a final decree
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF - I
Civil Suit Defendant Won