Case Summary
Illikkal Abdul Kareem is the petitioner seeking the vacant possession of a property. Peranthodi Prajosh is the respondent involved in this eviction petition.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Case Type
Eviction Petition
Final Judgment
No
The matter was settled, and the Decree Holder obtained vacant possession of the property. The decree has been satisfied, leading to the closure of the eviction petition.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The Decree Holder was able to secure the vacant possession as the matter was settled.
The Decree Holder was able to secure the vacant possession as the matter was settled.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The Decree Holder was able to secure the vacant possession as the matter was settled.
The Decree Holder was able to secure the vacant possession as the matter was settled.
Supporting Evidence
The Decree Holder was able to secure the vacant possession as the matter was settled.
Judgment Evidence:
As per the statement the Decree Holder got the vacant possession of the Plaint Schedule Property. Decree satisfied. Hence EP closed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Illikkal Abdul Kareem
- Party Age
- 56
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Peranthodi Prajosh
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Statement filed.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. K. M. Musthafa
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The Decree Holder got the vacant possession of the Plaint Schedule Property.
Evidence:
As per the statement the Decree Holder got the vacant possession of the Plaint Schedule Property.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Eviction Petition
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Illikkal Abdul Kareem vs Peranthodi Prajosh regarding possession of property.
Case Code Year
Case between Illikkal Abdul Kareem vs Peranthodi Prajosh regarding possession of property.