Case Summary
Puthukudi Narikotta Baburajan @ Babu raj filed a suit against Kollarikkal Raveendran and others seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction and damages. The case revolves around a property dispute concerning claims of ownership and rights over the plaint schedule property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is partially decreed, restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from demolishing the compound wall. The claim for damages of 10,000 is disallowed.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff was found to have rightful ownership and the suit was not considered bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
The plaintiff was found to have rightful ownership and the suit was not considered bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff was found to have rightful ownership and the suit was not considered bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
The plaintiff was found to have rightful ownership and the suit was not considered bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Supporting Evidence
Considering the same, one of the co-owner had filed the suit and the same is enough. Hence, it cannot be stated that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed in part as follows: The defendants and their men are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from altering its lie and nature. The defendants are further restrained from demolishing the compound wall and from obstructing the construction of the compound wall on the eastern side of plaint schedule property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Puthukudi Narikotta Baburajan @ Babu raj
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kollarikkal Raveendran
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kollarikkal Babu
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kollarikkal Sivan
- Party Age
- 44
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kollarikkal Shyju
- Party Age
- 41
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Original partition deed No.1065/91 of SRO Kakkodi executed by Kartiyayani Amma and others, Photograph
Defendants Documents
Copy of notice issued by Secretary, Kuruvattur Grama Panchayath to Raveendran, Kollarikkal, True copy of Application under Right to Information Act issued by Kollarikkal Raveendran, Reply given to the Application under the Right to Information Act issued by State Public Information Officer, Kuruvattur Grama Panchayath, Kozhikode, Copy of application under Right to Information Act issued by Kollarikkal Raveendran to the Secretary, Kuruvattur Grama Panchayath, Reply to the Application under the Right to Information Act issued by State Public Information Officer, Kuruvattur Grama Panchayath, Kozhikode, Copy of Registered lawyer notice issued by Adv.KP Gangadharan to Secretary, Kuruvattur Grama Panchayath.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. KP Gangadharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Sandeep Krishnan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.KP Anil Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt.Swathi K
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
To restrain defendants from trespassing and obstructing construction.
Evidence:
The defendants and their men are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and from altering its lie and nature.
Relief Type:
Damages
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Claim for damages of ₹10,000.
Evidence:
The prayer of the plaintiff seeking damages to the tune of 10,000 is disallowed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Photograph
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Visual evidence related to the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Related to communication from the Panchayat regarding property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Application under RTI Act
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Requests information related to the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Reply under RTI Act
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Response from the Panchayat concerning the RTI application.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Application under RTI Act
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Further requests for information regarding property issues.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Reply under RTI Act
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Additional response from the Panchayat regarding the RTI application.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Formal notice addressed to the Panchayat regarding construction issues.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Details findings of the Advocate Commissioner related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Puthukudi Narikotta Baburajan @ Babu raj vs Kollarikkal Raveendran et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and damages
Case Code Year
Case between Puthukudi Narikotta Baburajan @ Babu raj vs Kollarikkal Raveendran et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and damages