Case Summary
The plaintiff, Sasilal P, is seeking a mandatory injunction against the defendants, Vinod K and Kadalundi Gramapanchayath, for allegedly encroaching upon his property and constructing a compound wall. The defendants deny the allegations and assert that the road in question is public property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Mandatory injunction to demolish the compound wall and restore the plaint A schedule property
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff against the 2nd and 3rd defendants, ordering the demolition of an illegally constructed compound wall and restoration of the property. The suit was dismissed against the 1st defendant.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The encroached portion of the property was not lawfully dedicated to the road and was originally part of the plaintiff's property.
The encroached portion of the property was not lawfully dedicated to the road and was originally part of the plaintiff's property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The encroached portion of the property was not lawfully dedicated to the road and was originally part of the plaintiff's property.
The encroached portion of the property was not lawfully dedicated to the road and was originally part of the plaintiff's property.
Supporting Evidence
The Commission report establishes that the plaint B schedule property originally formed part of the plaint A schedule property and is now included in the road. The defendants have failed to prove lawful dedication.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed against the 2nd and 3rd defendants as follows: 2nd and 3rd defendants are directed by way of mandatory injunction to demolish the common wall constructed on the plaint B schedule property which is a part of the plaint A schedule property and to restore the plaint A schedule property into its original position.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sasilal P
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vinod K
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kadalundi Gramapanchayath
- Relation
- Rep by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ramakrishnan
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Janmam Assignment deed No.1319/1989, complaint submitted to 2nd defendant, possession certificate, Janmam Assignment deed No. 717/2011
Defendants Documents
Extract of Asset Register of Kadalundi Grama Panchayath.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Manikanda Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt. A. Chithra
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. N. Shaju George
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Vinod Singh Cherian
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. T. M. Khalid
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Saranya. O
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Mimita. V
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Ruksana. S. P
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Directing the defendants to demolish the illegally constructed compound wall and restore the plaint A schedule property.
Evidence:
Accordingly, the 2nd and 3rd defendants are directed to demolish the compound wall constructed in the plaint B schedule property and to restore the plaint A schedule property to its original position.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Permitting the plaintiff to demolish the construction in the plaint B schedule property and realize expenses from the defendants if they fail to comply.
Evidence:
In the event that the 2nd and 3rd defendants fail to demolish the compound wall and restore the property within the time stipulated by this Court, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to demolish the said compound wall and restore the property, and the expenses incurred for such demolition and restoration shall be realised from the 2nd and 3rd defendants in accordance with law.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Ordering the defendants to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
Evidence:
Defendants are also directed to pay the costs of the suit to plaintiff.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The suit is dismissed against the 1st defendant.
Evidence:
The suit is dismissed against 1st defendant without cost.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Janmam Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Janmam Assignment deed no. 1319/1989 of SRO Feroke.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Complaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of complaint submitted to 2nd defendant and receipt.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Possession Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Possession certificate.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Janmam Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Janmam Assignment deed no. 717/2011 of SRO Feroke.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Asset Register Extract
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of extract of Asset Register of Kadalundi Grama Panchayath.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report concerning the possession and identity of the plaint B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Sketch filed along with Commission Report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Plan filed along with Commission Report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(b)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between Sasilal P vs Vinod K et al regarding mandatory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Sasilal P vs Vinod K et al regarding mandatory injunction