Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
Original Suit No.35/2021

Case between Malayil Balan vs Nikhil regarding injunction restraining trespass

Court
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Judge
Sri. Vivek P.
Order Date
2025-01-06
Duration
approximately-3 years 6 months
Case Closed
Mon, 01/06/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Malayil Balan filed a suit to restrain Nikhil from trespassing onto the scheduled property belonging to Balan's son-in-law. Nikhil counterclaimed for a mandatory injunction to restore a pathway he claimed was unjustly blocked by Balan.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court granted the plaintiff's request for an injunction against the defendant, prohibiting him from trespassing on the property. The counterclaim from the defendant was dismissed.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against trespassing and costs of the suit.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court granted the plaintiff's request for an injunction against the defendant, prohibiting him from trespassing on the property. The counterclaim from the defendant was dismissed.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff demonstrated possession and rights to the property, and the defendant failed to prove his claims.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff demonstrated possession and rights to the property, and the defendant failed to prove his claims.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff is entitled for a relief of injunction as prayed for.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, 1.The suit is decreed as follows : 1.The defendant and his men are hereby restrained by an order of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint scheduled property, from committing any act of waste thereupon and from doing any acts interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property by the plaintiff.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Malayil Balan
Party Age
69
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Nikhil
Party Age
39
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Kanam assignment deed No.851/01 of SRO Chelannur executed by Gopalan and others in favour of Shaji, Copy of land tax receipt issued from Nanminda Village in the name of Shaji, Possession certificate issued from Nanminda Village Office in the name of Shaji, Copy of Plan of proposed house submitted in Nanminda Grama Panchayath.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. V.P.Abdul Majeed
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendant and his men are restrained from trespassing into the plaint scheduled property.
Evidence:
The defendant and his men are hereby restrained by an order of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint scheduled property, from committing any act of waste thereupon and from doing any acts interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property by the plaintiff.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The defendant's request for a mandatory injunction to restore the counterclaim property is declined.
Evidence:
There is absolutely no evidence from the side of the defendant to show that he is entitled for a mandatory injunction as sought for in the counterclaim.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Title deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows that the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint scheduled property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document supports the plaintiff's claim regarding possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Possession Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document confirms the possession of the plaint scheduled property by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Building Plan
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is related to the planning of construction on the plaint scheduled property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Commissioner's Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This document supports the identification of the scheduled property based on its natural boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commissioner's Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This document is related to the planned examination of the scheduled property.
Reference:
Ext.C2

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between Malayil Balan vs Nikhil regarding injunction restraining trespass
Case Code Year
Case between Malayil Balan vs Nikhil regarding injunction restraining trespass

Quick Facts

Location
Kozhikode district
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Case Filed
Tue, 01/26/2021 - 12:00
Case Closed
Mon, 01/06/2025 - 12:00
From
Wed, 01/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 01/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Saifudheen Ibrahim et al vs K.S.Madhusoodanan et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between V.M. Abdulkhader Muhammed vs Calicut North Service Co-Operative Bank regarding mandatory and prohibitory injunction.
THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Narmadha et al vs Marakkath Lal regarding permanent injunction
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Bineesh vs Thekkedath Sreenivasan Nair et al regarding declaration of right and injunction.
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between P.Premi et al vs M.Rijeesh et al regarding recovery of possession and consequential injunction.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE.
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won