Case Summary
C.Mushthak Ali filed a suit against K.V.Alikoya and his legal heirs seeking to restrain them from forcefully dispossessing him from the rented premises. The defendant, K.V.Alikoya, has passed away, and his heirs are implementing the same contentions regarding the tenancy.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit, stating that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief as the tenancy was not disputed and there was no valid cause of action against the supplemental defendants who were the heirs of the deceased defendant.
Key Reasoning:
The tenancy is not in dispute, and no cause of action against the supplemental defendants was proven.
The tenancy is not in dispute, and no cause of action against the supplemental defendants was proven.
Why Defendant Won:
The tenancy is not in dispute, and no cause of action against the supplemental defendants was proven.
The tenancy is not in dispute, and no cause of action against the supplemental defendants was proven.
Supporting Evidence
What emerges from the discussion above is that PW1 is not entitled for a relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from forcefully dispossessing him from the premises.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- C.Mushthak Ali
- Party Age
- 46
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- K.V.Alikoya (died)
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vaheeda
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Farha.K.V
- Party Age
- 32
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ansil Usman
- Party Age
- 26
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Suha Mariyam
- Party Age
- 21
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Rent agreement dated 01.09.2006
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of Petition in RCP 9/25 filed before Munsiff’s Court-1(P)/Rent Control Court, Kozhikode
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.N.V.P.Rafeeque
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Simon Chacko
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Claim for a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant from forcefully dispossessing the plaintiff.
Evidence:
I find that PW1 is not entitled for any relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from forcefully dispossessing him from the premises.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Claim for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the original defendant from trespassing into the scheduled premises.
Evidence:
I find that PW1 is not entitled for any relief of injunction against trespass as prayed for.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Rent Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of the rent agreement which establishes the tenancy relationship.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Certified copy of Petition
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Document filed in the Rent Control Court related to eviction proceedings against the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Eviction and Rent Control
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Non-payment of rent
Case Code
Case between C.Mushthak Ali vs K.V.Alikoya et al regarding injunction against forceful dispossession
Case Code Year
Case between C.Mushthak Ali vs K.V.Alikoya et al regarding injunction against forceful dispossession