Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS. No. 469/2017

Case between Manikantan vs Dileep et al regarding damages for trespass and property damage

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Judge
Smt. Ragi.S.
Order Date
2025-06-10
Duration
approximately-8 years 5 months
Case Closed
Tue, 06/10/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Manikantan, a PWD contractor, filed a suit against his neighbors Dileep, Mohanan Pillai, and Jeesathu for damages due to trespassing and cutting down trees on his property. The plaintiff claims significant financial and emotional loss due to the defendants' actions.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants committed trespass or caused any damage. The suit was dismissed with costs.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants committed trespass or caused any damage. The suit was dismissed with costs.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff did not prove the allegations of trespass or damage incurred by the defendants.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
It has not been proved that the defendants 1 to 3 created a pathway through the plaintiff’s property and cut and removed jackfruit, mango, coconut and other trees from that area, causing a loss of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit dismissed. On considering the nature of the suit both party shall suffer their respective cost.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Manikantan
Party Age
57
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Dileep
Party Age
45
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Mohanan Pillai
Party Age
58
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Jeesathu
Party Age
28
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of FIR Report, Certified copy of Mahazar, Advocate notice, Postal Receipts, Acknowledgment Cards, Returned Cover and Acknowledgment Card, Pen drive
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
K.Somasekharan Pillai
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
N.Sivadasan Pillai
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
S.R.Prasanth
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Aliyazha Zakir
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
S.Abdul Karim
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Damages
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for the alleged destruction of property.
Evidence:
In short, this court found that the plaintiff is failed to establish, by cogent and legally admissible evidence, that the defendants committed trespass, felled trees, or caused financial or mental harm.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Certified copy of FIR Report
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was used to substantiate the claim of a crime being registered against the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Certified copy of FIR Report
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provided additional context to the police complaint.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Certified copy of Mahazar
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was intended to demonstrate the condition of the property post-alleged trespass.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Office copy of Advocate notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice was sent to defendants demanding payment for damages.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Postal Receipts
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
These receipts were provided to indicate communication with the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A5 Series
Document Type: Acknowledgment Cards
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
These cards served as proof of delivery of communications to the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A6 Series
Document Type: Returned Cover and Acknowledgment Card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was to demonstrate the acknowledgment of receipt by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Pen Drive
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The pen drive contained video evidence related to the claims of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A8

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Manikantan vs Dileep et al regarding damages for trespass and property damage
Case Code Year
Case between Manikantan vs Dileep et al regarding damages for trespass and property damage

Quick Facts

Location
Kollam
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Case Filed
Sun, 01/01/2017 - 12:00
Case Closed
Tue, 06/10/2025 - 12:00
From
Thu, 05/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Mon, 06/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Vijayendran, Chithra vs Yamunadevi regarding review of order
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Navasudeen.S vs Sira Group regarding review of an earlier order
Court of the Munsiff, Kollam
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sajeev vs T.Unnikrishna Pillai regarding setting aside an exparte decree.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Gopakumar vs K.S.Abdul Manaf regarding Realisation of Money
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM.
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Bank of India vs Shibina. S et al regarding dismissal of suit as not pressed.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won