Case Summary
Plaintiff sought mandatory and prohibitory injunction against the defendant to prevent trespassing and demolition of property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Perpetual injunction
Case Type
Civil Suit - Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
Plaintiff provided cogent and reliable evidence of ownership and possession of the property, leading to the grant of injunction.
Plaintiff provided cogent and reliable evidence of ownership and possession of the property, leading to the grant of injunction.
Judgment Evidence:
Therefore plaintiff is not entitled to get a mandatory injunction as claimed in the suit. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to get a perpetual injunction as prayed for.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Manakkattu thodi Muhammed Sahal (28 years)
Manakkattu thodi House, Athavanad Para, Athavanad Amsom, Desom and Post, Tirur Taluk, PIN 676 301
Defendants
Manakkattu thodi Endeen Kutty (60 years)
Manakkattu thodi House, Athavanad Para, Athavanad Amsom, Desom and Post, Tirur Taluk, PIN 676 301
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Partly Granted
Description:
Perpetual injunction against defendant entering the property and interfering with plaintiff's possession and enjoyment.
Evidence:
The suit is decreed in part as follows:- 1. The defendant and his men are restrained by a perpetual injunction from entering into the plaint schedule property and interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Jenm Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Evidencing property purchase 28 years ago
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of tax payment for the property
Reference:
Ext.A3, Ext.A4
Document Type:
Commissioner's Report, Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Boundary inspection and plan
Reference:
Ext.C1, Ext.C2, Ext.C3, Ext.C4