Case Summary
The 2nd defendant, Mohanan, seeks a permanent prohibitory injunction to stop the plaintiff, Nicemol Nishad, from trespassing onto his property and preventing him from using it. The court was asked to appoint a Taluk surveyor to demarcate the property after the plaintiff allegedly demolished a compound wall.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the petition filed by the 2nd defendant for appointing a Taluk surveyor to demarcate property, finding no merit in it and imposing costs on the defendant.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
Supporting Evidence
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, Petition is dismissed on costs of Rs.500/-.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nicemol Nishad alias Nice Nisha
- Party Age
- 34
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mohanan
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sushanth J
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Zakir Hussain
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Nikhil U Gopinath
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The 2nd defendant sought a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the plaintiff from trespassing into the plaint property.
Evidence:
Hence the court finds no merit in the petition.
Relief Type:
Appointment of Taluk Surveyor
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The 2nd defendant requested to appoint a Taluk surveyor to measure and demarcate the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
This court does not find it necessary to demarcate the property by a Taluk surveyor for the proper adjudication of the suit.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Surrender Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the possession and enjoyment of the property by the 2nd defendant after the demise of their mother.
Reference:
No.1545/2014
Document Type:
Local Inspection Report
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This report was marked as evidence during the hearing of the suit.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Exhibit
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
These exhibits were marked as evidence presented by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Exts.A1 to A6
Document Type:
Exhibit
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
These exhibits were marked as evidence presented by the 2nd defendant.
Reference:
Exts.B1 and B2
Document Type:
Exhibit
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
These exhibits were marked as evidence during the reopening of the plaintiff's evidence.
Reference:
Exts.A7, A7(a), (b)
Document Type:
Commissioner Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report was marked as evidence and relates to the local inspection conducted.
Reference:
Ext.C1 (a)
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Oral testimonies were provided by witnesses during the proceedings.
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Nicemol Nishad alias Nice Nisha vs Mohanan regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Nicemol Nishad alias Nice Nisha vs Mohanan regarding permanent prohibitory injunction