Case Summary
Adukkathil Moitheen has filed a suit against Sunil Kumar. K.P and Aboobacker @ Bakker seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction. The plaintiff claims that the defendants illegally removed soil from his property, causing damage.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property and a direction to pay costs of the suit.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from trespassing on the plaintiff's property and removing soil illegally.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The evidence of the plaintiff was unchallenged, establishing exclusive ownership and illegal actions by the defendants.
The evidence of the plaintiff was unchallenged, establishing exclusive ownership and illegal actions by the defendants.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The evidence of the plaintiff was unchallenged, establishing exclusive ownership and illegal actions by the defendants.
The evidence of the plaintiff was unchallenged, establishing exclusive ownership and illegal actions by the defendants.
Supporting Evidence
The plaint claim is proved through Exts.A1 to A4 documents and affidavit filed by PW1. Hence the suit is filed to restrain the defendants and their men from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is decreed as follows: 1. The defendants are restrained by way of a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property. 2. The defendants are further restrained from adding any portion of plaint A schedule property to the plaint B schedule property. 3. The defendants are further restrained from removing the soil from plaint B schedule property illegally and without obtaining permission from the authorities... 4. The defendants are also directed to pay costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Adukkathil Moitheen
- Party Age
- 79
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sunil Kumar. K.P
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Aboobacker @ Bakker
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of Deed No. 1025/1981 of SRO, Mukkom, Copy of Settlement Deed No. 1950/1996 executed by Plaintiff in favour of Abdul Nasar of SRO, Mukkom, Copy of Deed No. 2857/1996 executed by plaintiff in favour of Abdul Nasar, Land Tax Receipt issued by Village Officer, Kakkad.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Muhammed Haneef
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. T.K. Sajendra Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Noushad Kallada
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendants are restrained by way of a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint A schedule property.
Evidence:
Therefore this court is of the view that the defendants can shall be restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed by the plaintiff.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendants are further restrained from adding any portion of plaint A schedule property to the plaint B schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendants are further restrained from adding any portion of plaint A schedule property to the plaint B schedule property.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendants are further restrained from removing the soil from plaint B schedule property illegally and without obtaining permission.
Evidence:
The defendants are further restrained from removing the soil from plaint B schedule property illegally and without obtaining permission from the authorities SO as to cause loss to lateral support of plaint A schedule property or in anyways causing damage to plaint A schedule property.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendants are also directed to pay costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
Evidence:
The defendants are also directed to pay costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Deed No. 1025/1981 of SRO, Mukkom shows that plaint A schedule property is in the exclusive ownership and possession of plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Settlement Deed No. 1950/1996 executed by Plaintiff in favour of Abdul Nasar of SRO, Mukkom supports the plaintiff's claims.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Deed No. 2857/1996 executed by plaintiff in favour of Abdul Nasar further proves the plaint claims.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Land Tax Receipt issued by Village Officer, Kakkad establishes the plaintiff's ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Injunction and Access Rights
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between Adukkathil Moitheen vs Sunil Kumar. K.P, Aboobacker @ Bakker regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Adukkathil Moitheen vs Sunil Kumar. K.P, Aboobacker @ Bakker regarding permanent prohibitory injunction