Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • About us
  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • Contact Us
ORIGINAL SUIT No. 260 OF 2012

Case between Moidu vs Vasudevan Nair et al regarding property boundary dispute

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF TIRUR
Judge
Sri. JANKISH NARAYANAN
Order Date
2019-08-31
Duration
7 years 1 month 3 days

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Case involves Moidu suing Vasudevan Nair et al over loss of lateral support, encroachment of property, and construction of road. Plaintiff seeks mandatory and prohibitory injunctions.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit is dismissed with costs.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to prove adjacent property, loss of lateral support, and encroachment as claimed.

Judgment Evidence:

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Moidu (54 years years) Vettikkat house, Koodasseripara, Kurumbathoor amsom, Koodasseri desom, Kurumbathoor P.O., Tirur Taluk

Defendants

Vasudevan Nair (64 years years) Karat Vellatu house, Kurumbathoor amsom and post, Koodasseri desom, Tirur Taluk Sreeja (35 years years) Karat Vellat house, Kurumbathoor amsom and post, Koodasseri desom, Tirur Taluk Mani (40 years years) Karat Vellat house, Kurumbathoor amsom and post, Koodasseri desom, Tirur Taluk Ramachandran Nair (Age not specified years) Karat Vellat Padinharethil house Kuttikrishnan Nair (Age not specified years) Karat Vellat Padinharethil house

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Direction to restore property and provide lateral support
Evidence:
Advocate Commissioner's report on excavation and support
Relief Type: Permanent Prohibitory Injunction
Outcome: Not Decided
Description:
Restriction on further excavation
Evidence:
Advocate Commissioner's findings on property damage

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Property ownership history
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Financial transactions
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Financial transactions
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Report
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Report submitted before RDO
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Visual evidence
Reference:
Ext.B3(a) to B3(s)
Document Type: Certified Copy
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Official document copy
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Certified Copy
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Complaint to Chief Minister
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Certified Copy
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Complaint to Revenue Minister
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Advocate Commissioner's report
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Advocate Commissioner's plan
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Geologist's report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Geologist's findings
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type: Interim report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Advocate Commissioner's interim report
Reference:
Ext.C4
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Advocate Commissioner's report
Reference:
Ext.C5
Document Type: Commission Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Advocate Commissioner's plan
Reference:
Ext.C6

Quick Facts

Location
Tirur
Case Filed
Wed, 08/29/2012 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases