Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
Original Suit No.462/2021

Case between Kadeeja vs Kunnamagalam Grama Panchayath regarding mandatory injunction

Court
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF -II, KOZHIKODE
Judge
Smt.ANJALI. P
Order Date
2025-11-22
Duration
approximately-4 years 2 months
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Kadeeja is the plaintiff claiming ownership over a property that the Kunnamagalam Grama Panchayath has converted into a public road. The plaintiff seeks an injunction to remove the construction on her property.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for mandatory injunction, finding that the plaintiff did not have ownership or possession of the property in question.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for mandatory injunction, finding that the plaintiff did not have ownership or possession of the property in question.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff could not prove ownership or settled possession over the property.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff could not prove ownership or settled possession over the property.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has not been successful in proving before the court that she is in ownership and possession of the entire extent of the plaint A schedule property.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Kadeeja
Party Age
58
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Kunnamagalam Grama Panchayath
Relation
Represented by
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Deed No.2267/1990, Land Tax Receipt, Copy of survey plan, Copy of Lawyer Notice, Reply Notice
Defendants Documents
True copy of Extract from the Assessment Register of Kunnamanglam Grama Panchayat, Photograph

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Smt. K.Soniya
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.Vinod Singh Cheriyan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
T.M.Khalid
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Saranya.O
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Shynu.H
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Seema Varghease
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Dheeraj.P.P
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Request for a mandatory injunction to restore the plaint B schedule property
Evidence:
The prayer for mandatory injunction cannot be allowed on the mere reason that plaintiff is not in possession of the land.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves ownership of the plaint A schedule property
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demonstrates tax remittance for the plaint A schedule property
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Survey Plan
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Identifies the area of the plaint A schedule property
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Copy of Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Initiates the demand for removal of illegal construction by defendant
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Postal Receipts and Acknowledgment Card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supports the issuance of notice to the defendant
Reference:
Ext.A4(a), Ext.A4(b)
Document Type: Reply Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Contains the defendant's response to the plaintiff's notice
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Extract from the Assessment Register
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Establishes that the plaint B schedule property is a public road
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Photograph
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Visual evidence related to the status of the plaint B schedule property
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Details findings regarding the possession of the plaint A schedule property
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Surveyor's Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Provides additional details on the property in dispute
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Interim Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Offers preliminary findings on the dispute
Reference:
Ext.C3

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between Kadeeja vs Kunnamagalam Grama Panchayath regarding mandatory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Kadeeja vs Kunnamagalam Grama Panchayath regarding mandatory injunction

Quick Facts

Location
Kozhikode
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Case Filed
Fri, 09/24/2021 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Mon, 09/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 12/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Panchayat

Similar Cases

Case between Rajagopalan Nair et al vs Kamalam et al regarding injunction
Munsiff-II, Kozhikode
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Ramanattukara Scheduled caste Service Co-operative Society vs Assistant Engineer, N.H. Bypass Division et al regarding perpetual prohibitory injunction and compensation
IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between P.A.Sajeed vs Muhammed Shihab regarding mandatory injunction and damages
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF -II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Lakshmikutty Amma et al vs Kozhikode City Service Co-operative Bank et al regarding declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF -II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Padmini vs Yasodha P regarding perpetual prohibitory injunction
Munsiff-II, Kozhikode
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won