Case Summary
Girija filed a suit against Arunjith P, Sasikumar P, and the Secretary of Thalakulathoor Grama Panchayath seeking a mandatory injunction for unauthorized construction on her property. The plaintiff claims the construction is illegal and seeks mesne profits for its usage.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit, stating that the plaint schedule property was not clearly identifiable and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs sought.
Key Reasoning:
The plaint schedule property is not clearly identifiable and the reliefs sought cannot be granted.
The plaint schedule property is not clearly identifiable and the reliefs sought cannot be granted.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaint schedule property is not clearly identifiable and the reliefs sought cannot be granted.
The plaint schedule property is not clearly identifiable and the reliefs sought cannot be granted.
Supporting Evidence
The plaint schedule property is not clearly identifiable, and hence, the pleadings of the plaintiff are also not clear with respect to the said aspect.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Girija
- Party Age
- 56
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Arunjith P
- Party Age
- 28
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sasikumar P
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- The Secretary
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of partition deed No.G 1534/2004, Copy of land tax receipt, Copy of lawyer notice sent to Arunjith, Copy of reply of lawyer notice from Arunjith, Copy of lawyer notice sent to The Secretary, Copy of reply of lawyer notice from The Secretary, Copy of building construction without permission.
Defendants Documents
True copy of extract of register report issued by Thalakulathur Grama Panchayath, Registration certificate of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vehicle, Contract carriage permit.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. KB Sahasranaman
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt.P Vidhya
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Srinath Girish
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Vinod Singh Cheriyan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.TM Khalid
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt.Saranya O
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Shynu H
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt.Seema Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to remove unauthorized construction.
Evidence:
Considering all these aspects, it is clear that plaint schedule property is not identifiable. Thus, the plaint schedule property is not clearly identified. The pleadings of the plaintiff is also not clear with respect to the said aspect.
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought mesne profits for unauthorized usage of the property.
Evidence:
Considering the same, the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed the suit.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Serves as proof of ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Legal Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Informs 1st defendant regarding unauthorized constructions.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Reply to legal notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
1st defendant's response denying the claims.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Legal Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Legal notice sent to the Thalakulathur Grama Panchayath.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Reply to legal notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Response from Thalakulathur Grama Panchayath regarding unauthorized construction.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Building Construction Report
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates illegal construction without permission.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Extract of Register Report
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Details construction permissions and history pertaining to the school property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Vehicle Registration Certificate
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Serves as evidence related to the school operations.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Contract Carriage permit
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Major documentation for transportation relating to the school.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Court-appointed commission report regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Unauthorized construction
Case Code
Case between Girija vs Arunjith P et al regarding mandatory injunction and other connected reliefs.
Case Code Year
Case between Girija vs Arunjith P et al regarding mandatory injunction and other connected reliefs.