Case Summary
The case involves plaintiff Manakkott Sivanandan seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction against defendants P.M. Malathy and P.M. Mohandas. The plaintiff claims that he is being obstructed from construction activities on his property by the defendants.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendants are restrained from trespassing and obstructing the plaintiff's construction; they shall remove their shack and hand cart.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants and ordering them to remove their shack and hand cart from the plaint schedule property. The defendants were also ordered to pay the costs of the suit.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The claim of the plaintiff is proved by sufficient documentation and the court found the evidence unchallenged.
The claim of the plaintiff is proved by sufficient documentation and the court found the evidence unchallenged.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The claim of the plaintiff is proved by sufficient documentation and the court found the evidence unchallenged.
The claim of the plaintiff is proved by sufficient documentation and the court found the evidence unchallenged.
Supporting Evidence
The claim of plaintiff is proved by Exts.A1 to A14 documents and C1 to C1(c) commission report. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff remains unchallenged.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: (1) The defendants are restrain from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from obstructing the plaintiff from constructing the house in the plaint schedule property in accordance with license and approved plan obtained from Kozhikode Corporation. (2) The defendants shall remove the shack and hand cart placed on the eastern corner of the plaint schedule property within one month from today. (3) The defendants shall pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Manakkott Sivanandan
- Party Age
- 61
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- P.M. Malathy
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- P.M. Mohandas
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- P.M. Prakasan
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified Copy of Janmam assignment deed no. 4346/2010, Copy of land tax receipt issued from Village Office, Nellikode, Original possession certificate issued by Village Officer, Nellikode, Building permit plan issued by Kozhikode Muncipal Corporation.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P.S. Ramalingam
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Adv. Razal Rahiman
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Adv. Jyothi. R
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Adv. Muhammed Shamnas O.K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff sought to prevent the defendants from trespassing.
Evidence:
Therefore, I find that the defendants can be restrained by permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff sought to remove the defendants' items from his property.
Evidence:
The defendants can also be directed by mandatory injunction to remove the shack and hand cart kept in the eastern corner of the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff sought costs for the suit.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is also entitled to get the costs of the suit.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Janmam Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document shows the plaintiff's ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document verifies the tax status of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Possession Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
It confirms the plaintiff's possession of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Building permit plan
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is required for the construction intended by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Complaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
It documents the plaintiff's attempts to report trespassing incidents.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Judgment Copy
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This is a certified copy of a related judgment indicating previous dispositions of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Order Copy
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
It shows previous administrative rulings relating to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Another verification of tax status for the property.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Judgment Copy
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This judgment is related to disputes involving the plaintiff and defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type:
Judgment Copy
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
A document relevant to the plaintiff's claims.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type:
Judgment Copy
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Another judgment confirming historical legal issues with the property.
Reference:
Ext.A11
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Verification of tax status again for the property.
Reference:
Ext.A12
Document Type:
Possession Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirms possession in favor of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A13
Document Type:
Location Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This indicates the location specifics of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A14
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The report provides factual context and findings relevant to the case.
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 Manakkott Sivanandan vs P.M. Malathy, P.M. Mohandas et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Manakkott Sivanandan vs P.M. Malathy, P.M. Mohandas et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction.