Case Summary
The case involves P.M.Viswanathan and Mandattil Geetha, where the plaintiff seeks damages due to losses incurred from a fire that destroyed business premises. The suit also addresses the defendant's negligence in maintaining safety during operations.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with future interest.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed OS.564/2016 for default. OS.565/2016 was decreed, with the defendant required to pay Rs.5,00,000/- with interest. OS.566/2016 was decreed, ordering a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.
Why Plaintiff Won:
Plaintiff proved her case and was entitled to a decree as prayed for.
Plaintiff proved her case and was entitled to a decree as prayed for.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
Plaintiff has produced Exts.A1 to A6, C1, C2 and C3 series to substantiate her evidence. The evidence of PW1 and the documents produced by her remains unchallenged.
Judgment Evidence:
1)OS.564/2016 is dismissed for default with costs of the defendant. 2)OS.565/2016 is decreed with costs as follows:- The defendant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with future interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till its realization to the plaintiff. 3)OS.566/2016 is decreed with costs as follows:- Defendants and their men are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or demolishing, repairing or reconstructing the buildings or interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- P.M.Viswanathan
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mandattil Geetha
- Party Age
- 56
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mandattil Rajan
- Party Age
- 55
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- K.K.Rahim
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Thiruvoth Usha
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Trilsha
- Party Age
- 30
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Trivin
- Party Age
- 25
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Janmam Assignment no.741/1977 of SRO, West Hill, Rent agreement executed between Plaintiff and Defendant, Original license agreement between K.K.Rahim and plaintiff, Copy of lawyer notice, Copy of Reply notice sent by defendant’s advocate, Certified copy of order in RC Rev.No 190/16 of Hon’ble High Court.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.K.P.Gangadharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- R.Renjini
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.K.Sivadasan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Manoj
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K.P.Gangadharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K.Govind
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.Sivadasan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Summayath
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Damages
Outcome:
Partly Granted
Description:
Plaintiff sought damages for loss due to fire.
Evidence:
The defendant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with future interest at 12% per annum.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Injunction to restrain defendants from trespassing and interfering with the property.
Evidence:
Defendants and their men are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Damages
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff's claim for damages in OS 564/2016.
Evidence:
OS.564/2016 is dismissed for default with costs of the defendant.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified copy of Janmam Assignment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Used to establish property rights.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Rent Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Used to demonstrate the rental agreement between the plaintiff and defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Original license agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Related to the business operation by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Copy of Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Correspondence regarding business issues.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Copy of Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Response from the defendant's advocate.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Certified copy of Order
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supporting evidence regarding past court decisions.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Interim Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Provided information regarding the property status.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Details about the commission's findings.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Valuation Statement
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Valuation of the property involved in the suit.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Additional findings related to the property condition.
Reference:
Ext.C3
Document Type:
Valuation Statement
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Further evaluation related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.C3(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Negligence causing damage
Case Code
Case between P.M.Viswanathan vs Mandattil Geetha regarding damages.
Case Code Year
Case between P.M.Viswanathan vs Mandattil Geetha regarding damages.