Case Summary
Muhammed is the plaintiff seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, Abdul Rahiman and Ameer, regarding access to property. The plaintiff claims ownership of the property which the defendants allegedly entered and used without permission.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants with costs. The plaintiff failed to establish the identity of the property in question.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to prove ownership and identify the property claimed in the suit.
The plaintiff failed to prove ownership and identify the property claimed in the suit.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff failed to prove ownership and identify the property claimed in the suit.
The plaintiff failed to prove ownership and identify the property claimed in the suit.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has failed to prove the identity of the plaint A schedule. It is also found that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he has title over the B schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Muhammed
- Party Age
- 67
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Abdul Rahiman
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ameer
- Party Age
- 25
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Partition Deed No. 3030/2001, Land Tax receipt, Copy of possession certificate, Certified copy of FIR No.0399/23, Certified copy of FI statement by Muhammed in Crime No. 399/23
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Adv. Janil John
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Afsal Shereef V.P.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain defendants from trespassing and obstructing access.
Evidence:
The court found that the plaintiff has failed to prove the identity of the plaint A schedule.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document establishing plaintiff's ownership of the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Related to payment of land taxes by the plaintiff, supporting his claim to ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Possession Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certificate demonstrating plaintiff's possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
FIR
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Filed to document the alleged trespassing and boundary wall demolition.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
FIR Statement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supporting document to the FIR outlining the plaintiff’s account.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Reports and plans submitted by the Advocate Commissioner regarding the site inspection.
Reference:
Ext.C1 series
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Further commission report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Muhammed vs Abdul Rahiman et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Muhammed vs Abdul Rahiman et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction