Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Nazarudeen. A and Laila Beegum, are husband and wife seeking legal remedies for property encroachment. The defendants, Tom.D and Johnson, are accused of unlawfully taking possession of a portion of the plaintiffs' property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Recovery of possession of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property and demolition of the plaint ‘C’ schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them possession of their property and ordering the defendants to remove structures they built on it. The defendants were also restrained from further encroachment.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs proved their ownership and possession of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property.
The plaintiffs proved their ownership and possession of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs proved their ownership and possession of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property.
The plaintiffs proved their ownership and possession of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs demonstrated rightful possession and ownership of the property through valid documentation and witness testimony.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result; the suit is decreed as follows: (a) It is hereby declared that the plaintiffs are the absolute title holders of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property...
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nazarudeen. A
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Laila Beegum
- Party Age
- 35
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Tom.D
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Johnson
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Sale Deed No.3598/1980, Certified copy of Sale Deed No.3528/1996, Certified copy of the Settlement Deed No.1491/2009, Land tax receipt No.1020150, Letter from the Additional Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. M.S. Manish
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Sheeba P. Mamman
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiffs are declared the absolute title holders of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property.
Evidence:
It is hereby declared that the plaintiffs are the absolute title holders of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property.
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are entitled to recover the possession of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendants are directed to demolish and remove the plaint ‘C’ schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendants are directed to demolish and remove the plaint ‘C’ schedule property at their expense.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendants are perpetually restrained from trespassing into the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties.
Evidence:
The defendants be perpetually restrained from trespassing into the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendants are perpetually restrained from selling any portion of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property.
Evidence:
Let the defendants be perpetually restrained from selling any portion of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiffs are entitled to put up a boundary separating the plaint ‘A’ and ‘D’ schedule properties.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are entitled to put up a boundary separating the plaint ‘A’ and ‘D’ schedule properties.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiffs are entitled to recover the costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are entitled to recover the costs of the suit from the defendants and their assets.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale deed No.3598/1980.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale deed No.3528/1996.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the Settlement deed No.1491/2009.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Land tax receipt No. 1020150.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Letter from the Additional Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report marked as court exhibit.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch marked as court exhibit.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report marked as court exhibit.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Survey plan marked as court exhibit.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2017