Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.572/2021

Case between Abdul Rahim vs Suneesh.S.Anand regarding mandatory injunction

Court
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I
Judge
Sri. Manesh. S.V Additional Munsiff-I
Order Date
2025-08-26
Duration
approximately-4 years 3 months 26 days
Case Code No.
572
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Abdul Rahim and Abdul Latheef, claim ownership of property and seek a mandatory injunction against the defendant, Suneesh.S.Anand, related to a lease agreement that they argue is void due to non-compliance. The defendant contends the suit is not maintainable, citing issues with the lease's validity and a claim for a refund of a security deposit.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The suit is partly decreed, declaring that the lease covered by Ext.A1 stands determined, allowing the plaintiffs to recover costs from the defendant.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Plaintiffs are allowed to recover costs from the defendant.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is partly decreed, declaring that the lease covered by Ext.A1 stands determined, allowing the plaintiffs to recover costs from the defendant.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The lease agreement was determined and no valid claims from the defendant were established.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The lease agreement was determined and no valid claims from the defendant were established.
Supporting Evidence
It is to be noted that in Ext.A1, there is no mention of any such deposit of money paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs. There is no other evidence offered before the Court to prove or probablise the contention of the defendant.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed in part with costs: 1.It is hereby declared that the lease covered by Ext.A1 stands determined.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Abdul Rahim
Party Age
59
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Abdul Latheef
Party Age
56
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Suneesh.S.Anand
Party Age
46
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified Copy of Lease Deed No.2366/2011, Encumbrance Certificate, Copy of Legal Notice, Postal Receipt, Acknowledgment Card, Copy of Tax Receipt
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Jobin Jose
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Pulari.D.R
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Thirumala.P.K.Mani
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Partly Granted
Description:
Requested to prevent the defendant from entering the property and removing the lease document from the records.
Evidence:
It is hereby declared that the lease covered by Ext.A1 stands determined.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Lease Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The lease deed establishing the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant, which the court determined stood determined.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Encumbrance certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Used to show the status of the property and confirm that the lease was not actively in force.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Legal Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provided evidence of the plaintiff's demand for action from the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Served as proof of sending the legal notice.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Acknowledgment card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demonstrated acknowledgment of receipt related to the legal notices sent.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicated the payment of tax for the property which the plaintiffs owned.
Reference:
Ext.A6

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Non-payment of rent
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2021

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Mon, 05/31/2021 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Fri, 08/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 08/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between R. Saroja vs Sivathanu @ Murugan et al regarding partition of plaint schedule properties.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sarathchandran Nair.J vs Government of India et al regarding boundary measurement and injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Nazarudeen. A vs Tom.D et al regarding suit for declaration, recovery of possession, and injunction
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Aravindan Nair et al vs Ramachandran Nair et al regarding partition and permanent prohibitory injunction.
THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Ramesan vs Sujatha et al regarding partition of ancestral property.
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won