Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Janaki and Rajeev, seek a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, Muhammadali and Subaida, due to a dispute over property boundaries. The defendants allegedly trespassed onto the plaintiffs' property and damaged their boundary structures.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs were not able to prove their claims regarding trespass and boundary demarcation.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to establish their claims regarding the alleged trespass and boundary issues.
The plaintiffs failed to establish their claims regarding the alleged trespass and boundary issues.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs failed to establish their claims regarding the alleged trespass and boundary issues.
The plaintiffs failed to establish their claims regarding the alleged trespass and boundary issues.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants had trespassed into the plaint schedule property, and the physical boundaries of the property were not clearly identifiable.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Janaki
- Party Age
- 79
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Rajeev
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Muhammadali
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Subaida
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified Copy of Janmam Assignment deed no. 2300/1978, Certified Copy of Janmam Assignment deed no. 2526/1967, Land Tax receipt, Copy of OS 377/2019.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. K.B. Sivaramakrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. K. Asokan Pazhur
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from trespassing and causing damage.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are not entitled for a discretionary relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Janmam Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
1st plaintiff obtained the plaint 1st schedule property by virtue of Jenmam assignment deed bearing No.2300/1978.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Janmam Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Plaint 2nd schedule property is obtained by Kumaran Vaithyar, the husband of the plaintiff, by virtue of Document No. 2526/1967.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipts show that the plaintiff has remitted tax for the said properties.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipts show that the plaintiff has remitted tax for the said properties.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
OS Petition
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Copy of OS 377/2019 filed before Principal Munsiff Court-II, Kozhikode regarding fixation of boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Commissioner Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The commissioner reported on the excavated soil and the boundaries mapping.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Janaki vs Muhammadali regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Janaki vs Muhammadali regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.