Case Summary
The case involves JANU, the plaintiff, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against BAHULEYAN @ BABU, the defendant, regarding trespassing and boundary destruction of the plaint schedule property. The petitioner claims identity issues regarding the property need resolution before the court can proceed.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the petition seeking to remit the commission report and plan as it was deemed belated and unnecessary. The evidence presented did not support the plaintiff's claims.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff could not establish that there was any encroachment or further need for a commission report after admitting there's no dispute with the property title.
The plaintiff could not establish that there was any encroachment or further need for a commission report after admitting there's no dispute with the property title.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff could not establish that there was any encroachment or further need for a commission report after admitting there's no dispute with the property title.
The plaintiff could not establish that there was any encroachment or further need for a commission report after admitting there's no dispute with the property title.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff admitted that there is no encroachment by the defendant and there is a dispute with regard to the identity of the plaint schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, IA 11/2025 is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- JANU
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- BAHULEYAN @ BABU
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Ragesh. M
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P. Balagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P. Arunkumar
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to restrain defendants from trespassing and altering the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
the plaintiff cannot turn around and seek to remit the report.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court reviewed the commission report and plan filed by the advocate commissioner dated 12.03.2025.
Reference:
null
Document Type:
Title deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The measurements in Ext.A1 were discussed with respect to the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS
Case Code Year
2022