Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
ORIGINAL SUIT No.453/2022

Case between Hathikka KV vs Nisha regarding mandatory injunction and compensation.

Court
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Judge
Smt.Meera John K
Order Date
2025-12-19
Duration
approximately-3 years 11 months
Case Closed
Fri, 12/19/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Hathikka KV, the plaintiff, filed a suit against Nisha, the defendant, seeking a mandatory injunction to vacate the property used for unauthorized occupation and compensation for damages. The plaintiff claims the defendant has overstayed the agreement terms, and the property is needed for a medical shop.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to vacate the property and to pay compensation for unauthorized use totaling ₹10,000 per month.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Mandatory injunction to vacate the property and pay ₹10,000 per month for unauthorized occupation.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to vacate the property and to pay compensation for unauthorized use totaling ₹10,000 per month.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found the plaintiff's claims regarding the unauthorized use and the need for the property credible.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The evidence of PW1 supports that the defendant is still continuing usage of plaint schedule property in spite of receipt of notice showing the intention of PW1 terminating the license.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: a) The defendant is directed by a decree of mandatory injunction to vacate from the plaint schedule property and to remove all her belongings failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to execute the same through process known to law.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Hathikka KV
Party Age
64
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Nisha
Party Age
40
Relation
D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Shop licence agreement dated 30.03.2016, legal notice dated 22.12.2021.
Defendants Documents
Rent receipt for October 2022, various postal receipts.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.MVP Abdul Majeed
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.Abraham Kollinal
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendant is directed to vacate the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendant is directed by a decree of mandatory injunction to vacate from the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type: Damages
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendant is directed to pay ₹10,000 per month for unauthorized use from 01.10.2021.
Evidence:
The defendant is directed to pay ₹10,000 per month for the unauthorized use and occupation of the plaint schedule property from 01.10.2021 till she vacates the property.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to get the costs of the suit from the defendant.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to get the costs of the suit from the defendant.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: License Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The court used Exhibit A1 to establish the terms under which the defendant was authorized to use the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Legal Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The court referenced Exhibit A2 as the notice sent to the defendant demanding to vacate the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A3 was acknowledged for proof of the sent legal notice.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Acknowledgment card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A4 served as additional evidence for the service of the legal notice.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Rent Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The court noted Exhibit B1 to discuss the payments made for the usage of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Rent Postal Receipts
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B2 (series) was examined concerning rent payments made by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B2 (Series)
Document Type: License Retention Letter
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B3 was discussed to show the defendant's authorization to run a medical shop.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Duplicate License
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B5 was relevant to the defendant's qualifications to operate a medical shop.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Building Certificate
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
The Building Certificate series supported the plaintiff’s arguments regarding property ownership.
Reference:
Ext.X1 (Series)

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between Hathikka KV vs Nisha regarding mandatory injunction and compensation.
Case Code Year
Case between Hathikka KV vs Nisha regarding mandatory injunction and compensation.

Quick Facts

Location
Kozhikode
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Case Filed
Mon, 12/19/2022 - 12:00
Case Closed
Fri, 12/19/2025 - 12:00
From
Wed, 10/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 12/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Girija vs Arunjith P et al regarding mandatory injunction and other connected reliefs.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Thottathil Pachukutty et al vs Thottathil Sulochana et al regarding recovery of possession of immovable property and mandatory injunction.
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Muraleedharan vs Premanandan et al regarding fixation of boundary and injunction
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Jose Antony vs K.D. Antony et al regarding declaration and consequential injunction.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Satheesh Charly vs The Calicut Cosmopolitan Club et al regarding declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Defendant Won