Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
Original Suit No. 141/2018

Case between Madhavi et al vs Ragini et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF -II, KOZHIKODE
Judge
Smt.MEERA JOHN.K
Order Date
2025-03-28
Duration
approximately-7 years 1 day
Case Closed
Fri, 03/28/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs Madhavi, Ajitha, Ajayan, Anitha, Ashalatha, and Amitha are seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants Ragini, Rahul, Rekha, and others to prevent trespass on their property. The case revolves around property rights and possession over the disputed land.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The plaintiffs succeeded in their suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction. The court restrains the defendants from trespassing, taking forcible possession, and interfering with the plaintiffs' properties.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The defendants and their men are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The plaintiffs succeeded in their suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction. The court restrains the defendants from trespassing, taking forcible possession, and interfering with the plaintiffs' properties.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs successfully proved their possession of the property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
It is to be seen that there is no dispute as to possession and right over plaint schedule item No.1 of property by the plaintiffs. The main dispute revolves around plaint schedule item No.2 of the property. The plaintiffs contend that they have got possession over plaint schedule item No.2 property wherein the defendants would allege that plaintiffs do not have any right and possession over plaint schedule item No.2 property.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs as follows: The defendants and their men are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties and from taking forcible possession of the same, committing wastes and interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Madhavi
Party Age
70
Relation
W/o. Late Thottiyil Madhavan
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Ajitha
Party Age
46
Relation
D/o.late Thottiyil Madhavan
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Ajayan
Party Age
44
Relation
S/o.late Thottiyil Madhavan
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Anitha
Party Age
42
Relation
D/o.late Thottiyil Madhavan
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Ashalatha
Party Age
40
Relation
D/o.late Thottiyil Madhavan
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Ragini
Party Age
60
Relation
W/o.late Variyamkandiyil Raghavanunni
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Rahul
Party Age
28
Relation
S/o.late Variyamkandiyil Raghavanunni
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Rekha
Party Age
25
Relation
D/o.late Variyamkandiyil Raghavanunni
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Variyamkandiyil Baburaj
Party Age
55
Relation
Died
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sunitha
Relation
W/o. Baburaj
Plaintiffs Documents
Land tax receipts, Possession certificates, Original licence and plan, Joint right assignment Deed.
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of order in A.A 56/2001 of Appellate Authority (LR) Kannur, Certified copy of order in CRP 769/2005 dated 01.03.2011 of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
E.M.Prakashan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
N.K.Viswanathan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendants are restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties.
Evidence:
The defendants and their men are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
The defendants requested to demolish alleged unauthorized constructions.
Evidence:
The counter claim is dismissed.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of ownership and possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of ownership and possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of ownership and possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of ownership and possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of ownership and possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Possession Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Possession Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Original Licence and Plan
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of construction and use of the bathroom and latrine.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Plan
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of construction and use of the bathroom and latrine.
Reference:
Ext.A8(a)
Document Type: Joint Right Assignment Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Support for the plaintiffs' claim over the property.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type: Purchase Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type: Purchase Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidence of ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A11
Document Type: Certified copy of Order
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Evidence supporting the defendants' counter claim.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Certified copy of Order
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Evidence supporting the defendants' counter claim.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Evidence regarding the actual possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commissioners plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Evidence regarding the actual possession and layout of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Injunction and Access Rights
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between Madhavi et al vs Ragini et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Madhavi et al vs Ragini et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Quick Facts

Location
Kozhikode
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Case Filed
Wed, 03/28/2018 - 12:00
Case Closed
Fri, 03/28/2025 - 12:00
From
Sat, 03/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sat, 05/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
100%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Raman vs Thanka et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Abdulla Sons Private Limited Company et al vs Aneesh regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Adukkathil Moitheen vs Sunil Kumar. K.P, Aboobacker @ Bakker regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between K.C.Chandran et al vs Sudha et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF -II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Abdul Manzoor.P.P vs Edathil Balan et al regarding perpetual prohibitory injunction
Munsiff-II, Kozhikode
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won