Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.1785/2018

Case between Ajithkhan et al vs Directorate of Factories & Boilers et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-02-17
Duration
approximately-7 years 4 days
Case Code No.
1785
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Ajithkhan, Anupkhan, and Ayubkhan, are children of Smt. Khadeejabeevi and Sri. Safarulla, seeking to prevent the defendants, including the Directorate of Factories & Boilers, from obstructing their right to use a pathway. The dispute revolves around the use of a pathway claimed by both parties.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them the right to use the pathway without obstruction by the defendants. The defendants were ordered to refrain from causing any obstructions.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Perpetually restrained from causing any obstructions to the free use of the plaint ‘D’ schedule pathway.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them the right to use the pathway without obstruction by the defendants. The defendants were ordered to refrain from causing any obstructions.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs successfully established their legal right to access the pathway and demonstrated that the obstruction was unlawful.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs successfully established their legal right to access the pathway and demonstrated that the obstruction was unlawful.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs have demonstrated a prima facie case by showing their legal right to use the pathway described in the plaint 'D' schedule, which has been unlawfully obstructed by the defendants.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result; The suit is decreed as follows: (a) Let the defendants and their agents be perpetually restrained from causing any obstructions to the free use of the plaint ‘D’ schedule pathway by the plaintiffs for their ingress and egress to the plaint ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Ajithkhan
Party Age
35
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Anupkhan
Party Age
37
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Ayubkhan
Party Age
33
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Directorate of Factories & Boilers, Kerala
Relation
represented by its Director
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Administrative Officer, Directorate of Factories & Boilers
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Secretary to the Government in charge Department of Factories & Boilers
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified true copy of Settlement deed No. 359/2014, Certified true copy of Settlement deed No. 360/2014, Certified true copy of Settlement deed No.361/2014, Certified copy of Sale deed No.1915/1982, Certified copy of Sale deed No.1916/1982, Copy of the complaint filed before the Chief Minister, Copy of the complaint filed before the Medical College Police Station, Copy of the complaint filed before the RDO, Thiruvananthapuram.
Defendants Documents
Original Sale deed No.2294/1991, Sketch, Basic tax register, Copy of complaint filed before the Medical College Police Station, Copy of the petition filed before the Additional Chief Secretary, Attested copy of the complaint filed before the RDO, Thiruvananthapuram, Attested copy of the complaint filed before the RDO, Thiruvananthapuram.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.R.Chandrapraveen
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Sanjay Mohan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Sirajudeen S.R
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Rinku.S
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Ajayakumar. S.S
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Azeem. A
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.Rex.D.G
Appearance Type
Government Pleader

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for obstructing the use of the plaint ‘D’ schedule pathway.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs have proven their entitlement to a permanent injunction and the issue is therefore answered in their favour.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified true copy of Settlement deed No. 359/2014 belonging to the first plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified true copy of Settlement deed No. 360/2014 belonging to the second plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified true copy of Settlement deed No. 361/2014 belonging to the third plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale deed No. 1915/1982 relevant to the plaintiffs' claim.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale deed No. 1916/1982 relevant to the plaintiffs' claim.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the complaint filed before the Chief Minister regarding obstruction.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the complaint filed before the Medical College Police Station.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the complaint filed before the RDO, Thiruvananthapuram.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the complaint filed before the RDO, Thiruvananthapuram.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Original Sale deed No. 2294/1991, marking ownership over the disputed pathway.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Sketch showing the layout of the disputed pathway.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Basic Tax Register
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Basic tax register from the village office detailing property ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of complaint filed before the Medical College Police Station regarding obstruction.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Petition
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of the petition filed before the Additional Chief Secretary.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Attested copy of the complaint filed before the RDO, Thiruvananthapuram.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type: Complaint
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Attested copy of the complaint filed before the RDO, Thiruvananthapuram.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type: Field Measurement Book
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of the field measurement book relevant to the disputed property.
Reference:
Ext.B8
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Report of the Advocate Commissioner detailing the properties and pathways.
Reference:
Ext.C1

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Obstruction of right of way
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2018

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Sat, 02/17/2018 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Sat, 02/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 02/28/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Government

Similar Cases

Case between Praveen Kumar. S.S vs NISH et al regarding prohibitory injunction.
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Dr.(Col). B. Ramesh vs State of Kerala et al regarding declaration of title and possession.
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Indirabai vs State of Kerala et al regarding declaration for title, possession and rectification of survey records
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Saifudeen Khan. M et al vs State of Kerala et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF I
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between S.Sreejith.IPS vs K.M.Shajahan regarding damages
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won