Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 328/2015

Case between Ayisha vs Vellathumparambil,V.P.Balakrishnan et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction, mandatory injunction and recovery of possession.

Court
Additional Munsiff - II, Kozhikode
Judge
Smt.MEERA JOHN.K
Order Date
2025-05-22
Duration
approximately-9 years 5 months
Case Closed
Thu, 05/22/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Ayisha, the plaintiff, filed a suit against Vellathumparambil,V.P.Balakrishnan and others seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction and recovery of possession of property. The suit arose from disputes over alleged trespass and construction by the defendants on the plaintiff's property.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff's use of the property and directing the removal of the defendants from the disputed areas.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction from creating obstruction in the usage of plaint B schedule property and mandatory injunction to remove themselves from plaint D schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff's use of the property and directing the removal of the defendants from the disputed areas.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found that the defendants were trespassing on the plaintiff's property as reported in the Advocate Commissioner's assessment.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found that the defendants were trespassing on the plaintiff's property as reported in the Advocate Commissioner's assessment.
Supporting Evidence
The court's findings indicated that a portion of plaint C schedule property was included in the description provided by the plaintiff, and adequate evidence based on the Advocate Commissioner's report supported the plaintiff's claims.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1) The defendants and their men are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from creating obstruction in the usage of plaint B schedule property by the plaintiff and her family members.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Ayisha
Party Age
48
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Vellathumparambil,V.P.Balakrishnan (died)
Party Age
55
Relation
S/o.Late
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Shamsudheen
Party Age
39
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Shajihan
Party Age
50
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Malathi
Party Age
58
Relation
W/o.Late
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Madhavi
Party Age
82
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copies of various Kanam Assignment Deeds and settlement deeds related to the property.
Defendants Documents
Pattayam and Release Deeds regarding the property in question.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Manjith.P
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Sunil Kumar.M.P
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.K.B.Sivaramakrishnan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.M.A.Latheef
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Injunction against the defendants from creating obstruction in the usage of plaint B schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendants and their men are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from creating obstruction in the usage of plaint B schedule property by the plaintiff and her family members.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Direction for the defendants to remove themselves from plaint D schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendants are directed by a decree of mandatory injunction to remove themselves from plaint D schedule property.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Order for defendants No.11 to 13 to remove themselves from plaint C schedule property.
Evidence:
Defendants No.11 to 13 are directed by way of mandatory injunction to remove themselves from plaint C schedule property and to demolish the retaining wall constructed on the western side of plaint C schedule property.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Injunction against the defendants from trespassing on plaint B and C schedule property.
Evidence:
Defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing upon plaint B and C schedule property and from carrying out construction works and from committing wastes in it.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Recovery of possession of plaint C schedule property.
Evidence:
Defendants are directed to surrender vacant possession of plaint C schedule property which is shown as CLIFC in Ext.C4(a) plan.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Recovery of possession of plaint D schedule property.
Evidence:
Defendants are directed to surrender vacant possession of plaint D schedule property shown as KQPD in Ext.C4(a) plan.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Certified copy of Kanam Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves the ownership of the plaintiff's father over the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Certified copy of Kanam Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demonstrates a transaction involving a portion of plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Certified copy of Kanam Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further establishes transactions related to the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Certified copy of Kanam Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates another transfer of property from plaint A schedule.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Certified copy of Kanam Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Clarifies the creation of a way left out which is relevant to plaint B schedule.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Certified copy of Kanam Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves further transactions from the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Registration copy of settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows the settlement of a portion of plaint A schedule property in favor of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Pattayam
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Claims the origin of the defendant's property, establishing grounds against the plaintiff's claims.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Release deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Demonstrates transfer of property rights relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Details findings related to property boundaries relevant to plaints A, B, and C.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Further investigation into property boundaries and usage related to plaints.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Confirms trespass on plaint C schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C3

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Ayisha vs Vellathumparambil,V.P.Balakrishnan et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction, mandatory injunction and recovery of possession.
Case Code Year
Case between Ayisha vs Vellathumparambil,V.P.Balakrishnan et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction, mandatory injunction and recovery of possession.

Quick Facts

Location
Kozhikode
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Case Filed
Fri, 05/22/2015 - 12:00
Case Closed
Thu, 05/22/2025 - 12:00
From
Sat, 03/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sat, 05/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between P.A.Sajeed vs Muhammed Shihab regarding mandatory injunction and damages
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF -II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sadasivan et al vs Valiyedath Subhadra et al regarding partition
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF -II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Lakshmikutty Amma et al vs Kozhikode City Service Co-operative Bank et al regarding declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF -II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Padmini vs Yasodha P regarding perpetual prohibitory injunction
Munsiff-II, Kozhikode
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Girish .M vs Sreenivasan.M et al regarding partition of property
MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Defendant Won