Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
Original Suit. No. 582/2022

Case between K.Sathya Devan vs Medaparambil Abdul Latheef regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF- II, KOZHIKODE
Judge
Smt. Meera John.K
Order Date
2025-01-06
Duration
approximately-2 years 19 days
Case Closed
Mon, 01/06/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, K.Sathya Devan, seeks a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, Medaparambil Abdul Latheef, to prevent blocking of access to his property. The defendant has attempted to obstruct a lane essential for the plaintiff's business activities.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from blocking the access to the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs of the suit from the defendant.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against blocking plaint C schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from blocking the access to the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs of the suit from the defendant.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The unchallenged evidence of the plaintiff coupled with the documentary evidence supports the plaintiff's claims.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The unchallenged evidence of the plaintiff coupled with the documentary evidence supports the plaintiff's claims.
Supporting Evidence
The unchallenged evidence of PW1 coupled with Exts.A1 to A5, C1, C1(a), C1(b) to C1(f) would prove the case of the plaintiff.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1) The defendant is restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from blocking plaint C schedule property in any manner and from obstructing the plaintiff from peacefully enjoying plaint C schedule property and also access through plaint C schedule property from plaint A and B schedule property.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
K.Sathya Devan
Party Age
70
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Medaparambil Abdul Latheef
Party Age
61
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Lease agreement executed by Sathya Devan infavour of Beebi Soharabanu and others, licence issued by Kozhikode Corporation, Lease agreement executed by Been infavour of Sathya Devan, Copy of Police complaint filed by the Plaintiff before the inspector of Police Vellayil P.S, Sketch.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.K.B.Sivaramakrishnan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.E.V.Viswambaran
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendant is restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from blocking plaint C schedule property in any manner.
Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1) The defendant is restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from blocking plaint C schedule property in any manner and from obstructing the plaintiff from peacefully enjoying plaint C schedule property.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff can realise the costs of the suit from the defendant.
Evidence:
2) The plaintiff can realise the costs of the suit from the defendant.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Lease Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Photocopy of Lease agreement executed by Sathya Devan in favour of Beebi Soharabanu and others.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: License
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Photocopy of licence issued by Kozhikode Corporation.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Lease Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Photocopy of Lease agreement executed by Beenu in favour of Sathya Devan.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Police Complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Police complaint filed by the Plaintiff before the inspector of Police Vellayil P.S.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Sketch.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission Report.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Sketch of Commissioner
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Sketch of Commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Photographs.
Reference:
Ext.C1(b), C1(c), C1(d), C1(e), C1(f)

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.Sathya Devan vs Medaparambil Abdul Latheef regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between K.Sathya Devan vs Medaparambil Abdul Latheef regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Quick Facts

Location
Kozhikode
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Case Filed
Sat, 01/01/2022 - 12:00
Case Closed
Mon, 01/06/2025 - 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