Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 487/2017

Case between K.M.Priyadarsanlal et al vs P.C.Mohandas et al regarding declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF -II, KOZHIKODE
Judge
Smt.MEERA JOHN.K
Order Date
2025-01-28
Duration
approximately-8 years 0 days
Case Closed
Tue, 01/28/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, K.M.Priyadarsanlal and P.Latha, seek a declaration regarding their rights over a property and an injunction against the defendants from trespassing on that property and using a well. The defendants include the deceased P.C.Mohandas and his legal heirs.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court declared that the plaintiffs have the right over the property and restrained the defendants from trespassing and drawing water from a well located on the property.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against trespassing and drawing water from the well.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court declared that the plaintiffs have the right over the property and restrained the defendants from trespassing and drawing water from a well located on the property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The unchallenged evidence of the plaintiffs and the legality of their ownership as substantiated by the documents presented.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The unchallenged evidence of the plaintiffs and the legality of their ownership as substantiated by the documents presented.
Supporting Evidence
The unchallenged evidence of PW1 coupled with Exts.A1 to A7, C1, C2 would prove the case of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to get a relief as sought for.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1) It is hereby declared that the plaintiffs only have the right over the plaint A schedule property and its improvements therein.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
K.M.Priyadarsanlal
Party Age
65
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
P. Latha
Party Age
53
Relation
Wife of first plaintiff
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
P.C.Mohandas
Party Age
61
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Pushpavathi
Party Age
63
Relation
Wife of 1st defendant
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
C.P.Bhageesh
Party Age
42
Relation
Son of 1st and 2nd defendant
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Shibija.C.P
Party Age
40
Relation
Daughter of 1st and 2nd defendant
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copies of sale deed No.1567/1998, Karayma kacheet deed No.2283/1956, and order in OS 470/1996.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.K.C.Raveendran Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
K.S.Vivek
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
T.S.Sajith Kumar
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
P.T.Rajesh
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Declaration that the plaintiffs only have the right over the plaint A schedule property.
Evidence:
It is hereby declared that the plaintiffs only have the right over the plaint A schedule property and its improvements therein.
Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Declaration that the defendants do not have any right over the well situated in the plaint A schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendants does not have any right over the well situated in plaint A schedule property as per document No.3602/2007 of Chevayur SRO.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing upon plaint A schedule property and from drawing water from the well.
Evidence:
The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing upon plaint A schedule property and from drawing water from the well situated in it.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff entitled to realize costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to realise the costs of the suit from the defendants.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Certified copy of assignment deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves the rights of the plaintiffs over the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Certified copy of Karayma kacheet deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provides historical ownership information relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Certified copy of order in Preliminary decree
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes previous legal decisions affecting the property rights.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Certified Copy of Judgment
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Details the outcome of the earlier partition suit involving the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Certified copy of Commission Report
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provides evidence regarding property conditions and usage.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Certified copy of order in IA
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Relevant to earlier legal proceedings concerning the property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Certified copy of ozhimury deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Contains critical documentation related to the property rights.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Interim report of Commissioner
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Provides interim findings relevant to the property assessment.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Contains findings that were considered in the final judgment.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Commissioner's sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Visual evidence related to the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Document Type: Surveyors plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Further clarifies property demarcations relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.C2(b)

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 K.M.Priyadarsanlal et al vs P.C.Mohandas et al regarding declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between K.M.Priyadarsanlal et al vs P.C.Mohandas et al regarding declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction

Quick Facts

Location
Kozhikode
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Case Filed
Sun, 01/01/2017 - 12:00
Case Closed
Tue, 01/28/2025 - 12:00
From
Wed, 01/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 02/28/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Kolassery Abdurahim vs Kanjirangal Kareem et al regarding property delivery
Rent Control Court
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M/s. UCO Bank vs Abhinav.K.P et al regarding dismissal of suit.
MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Girija et al vs Komalam et al regarding partition
MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Fathima Minha.K vs State of Kerala et al regarding dismissal of suit
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Dismissed
Case between M Sukumaran vs K. Ahammed et al regarding perpetual prohibitory injunction
Munsiff-II, Kozhikode
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won