Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 304/2017

Case between Kelam veettil Shaiju vs Vilakkumadathil Sarojini et al regarding injunction

Court
IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Judge
Smt. Jomy Anu Isaac
Order Date
2025-04-11
Duration
approximately-7 years 0 days
Case Closed
Fri, 04/11/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Kelam veettil Shaiju, is seeking a perpetual prohibitory injunction against the defendants, Vilakkumadathil Sarojini and others, to restrain them from trespassing on his property. The defendants have allegedly attempted to obliterate property boundaries and annex portions of the plaintiff's land.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court granted the plaintiff's request for a perpetual prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from trespassing and obliterating the property boundaries. The defendants' claims were rejected, leading to the dismissal of their counterclaim.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Perpetual prohibitory injunction against the defendants
Case Type
Original Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court granted the plaintiff's request for a perpetual prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from trespassing and obliterating the property boundaries. The defendants' claims were rejected, leading to the dismissal of their counterclaim.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found that the plaintiff had established his ownership and possession of the property, and the defendants' actions constituted trespass.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
It is found that there is a cloud on the title of the disputed area 'CHFG' and it is found to be in possession of defendants. Thus a simple suit for injunction as claimed in OS 425/17 will not lie. As the trespass to the plaint schedule property in OS 304/17 is proved and the plaint schedule property is clearly identified, the plaintiff in OS 304/17 is entitled for a decree for perpetual prohibitory injunction.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, OS 425/17 is dismissed with costs. OS 304/17 is decreed with costs as follows: The defendants and their men are permanently restrained by a decree for perpetual prohibitory injunction from trespassing to plaint schedule property, from obliterating its boundary, from annexing any portion of plaint schedule property to their property and from acting against right and possession of plaintiff in plaint schedule property.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Kelam veettil Shaiju
Party Age
40
Relation
S/o.
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Vilakkumadathil Sarojini
Party Age
60
Relation
W/o.
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Krishankumar
Party Age
31
Relation
S/o.
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Mridula
Party Age
34
Relation
D/o.
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Vasutmathy
Party Age
55
Relation
W/o.
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Subisha
Party Age
34
Relation
W/o.
Plaintiffs Documents
Janmam sale deed No. 2710/83, Janmam sale deed No. 2711/1983, Possession certificate, Land tax receipt
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of purchase deed No. 1236/1952, Certified copy of Janmam sale deed No. 2524/83, Copy of petition filed by Shyju before SHO Mavoor Police station, Settlement deed No. 2109/2005, Janmam sale deed No. 2182/1978, Land tax receipt

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Prasanth.U
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Sreeraj.P.N
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sneha Jyothi.M
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Permanently restraining the defendants and their men from trespassing to plaint schedule property and from obliterating its boundary.
Evidence:
The defendants and their men are permanently restrained by a decree for perpetual prohibitory injunction from trespassing to plaint schedule property, from obliterating its boundary, from annexing any portion of plaint schedule property to their property and from acting against right and possession of plaintiff in plaint schedule property.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
In OS 425/17, the claim for injunction to restrain the defendants from trespassing and obliterating the boundaries was denied.
Evidence:
OS 425/17 is dismissed with costs.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Janmam sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Janmam sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirms the settlement of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Possession Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the possession of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supports the claim of ownership through tax records.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further supports the ownership through tax documentation.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Certified copy of purchase deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Documents prior ownership related to the dispute.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Certified copy of Janmam sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Indicates ownership claims by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Petition filed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Relates to the actions taken by the defendant regarding property.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Establishes the claim of ownership and prior right by defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Janmam sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Shows ownership history relevant to the property dispute.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Supports the defendants' claim of ownership through tax payment.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Further establishes tax records related to property ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Provides findings regarding the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Details evidence related to the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Further assessment of property boundaries in dispute.
Reference:
Ext.C3

Case Classification

Case Type
Original Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Kelam veettil Shaiju vs Vilakkumadathil Sarojini et al regarding injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Kelam veettil Shaiju vs Vilakkumadathil Sarojini et al regarding injunction

Quick Facts

Location
Kozhikode
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Case Filed
Sun, 01/01/2017 - 12:00
Case Closed
Fri, 04/11/2025 - 12:00
From
Sat, 03/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sat, 05/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Joseph.K.C vs Sulochana.P.J regarding suit dismissal
MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Original Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sathyan.K vs Rafeeque pilakkil regarding dismissal for default.
MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Original Suit Defendant Won
Case between N.C. Kanaran vs N. Abhijith regarding declaration of agreement expiry and injunction
MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Original Suit Defendant Won
Case between Kuryakose et al vs P.A. Muhammed et al regarding amicable settlement of dispute.
MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Original Suit Unknown
Case between Ramachandran Pambadi vs Parapuravan Devu et al regarding vacating a room as per mediation agreement.
MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Original Suit Defendant Won