Case Summary
Shibu is the plaintiff seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against R. Rajagopalakrishnan and others. The case arises from a dispute over property ownership and related claims.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against trespassing into the counter claim property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The OS 792/2022 is dismissed and the counter claim is decreed. The defendants are restrained from trespassing into the counter claim A to D schedule property.
Key Reasoning:
The defendants demonstrated that they have been in settled possession of the property.
The defendants demonstrated that they have been in settled possession of the property.
Why Defendant Won:
The defendants demonstrated that they have been in settled possession of the property.
The defendants demonstrated that they have been in settled possession of the property.
Supporting Evidence
The defendants have shown that they are remitting tax in respect of the property...
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, 1. The OS 792/2022 is dismissed and the counter claim is decreed with costs...
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Shibu
- Party Age
- 49
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- R. Rajagopalakrishnan
- Party Age
- 56
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- M.J. Anandanarayanan
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- V.P. Ravi
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- P. Dharmarajan
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- K.R. Ramani
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Deed No. 801/2022, Possession Certificate, Location sketch, Plan and Permit, Letter from Punjab National Bank.
Defendants Documents
Certified copies of various deeds including Deed No. 306/1959, 969/1967, tax receipts...
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P.M. Mohandas
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Muhammed Shamnas. O.K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Bibin Raj
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P. Manjith
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Anil Viswanath
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from trespassing.
Evidence:
In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction as sought for.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Counter claim plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent the defendants from trespassing into certain properties.
Evidence:
The defendants who are in settled possession of the counter claim properties are entitled to a decree as sought for.
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a declaration that the deed No 65/1994 is a sham document.
Evidence:
The plaintiff has miserably failed in discharging his burden of proving that exhibit A6 document is a sham document.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A1 is the certified copy of the deed No 801/2022 which shows the plaintiff's purchase of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Possession Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A2 is the possession certificate issued by the Village Officer that establishes the plaintiff's possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Location Sketch & Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A3 is the location sketch and certificate relevant to the property under dispute.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Plan and Permit
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A4 is the copy of the plan and permit issued from Kozhikode Corporation for constructing the building.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Letter from Bank
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A5 is the letter from Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited regarding the mortgage of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A6 is the certified copy of the Deed No 65/1994 which is in dispute regarding its binding effect on the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Correction Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Exhibit A6(a) is the correction deed bearing No 337/1994 related to the property at issue.
Reference:
Ext.A6(a)
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B1 is a photocopy of site approval and building permit from Kozhikode Municipal Corporation which is relevant to the defendants' claims.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B2 is the certified copy of the deed No 306/1959 establishing the claims of the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B3 provides historical context to the property as it is the deed No 969/1967 relevant to the defendants' arguments.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B4 is the certified copy of the deed No 968/1967 which is referenced in the counterclaims.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B5 provides proof of transactions relevant to the defendants' properties.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Exhibit B14 is the Deed No 65/1994 which is being contested in the case.
Reference:
Ext.B14
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Exhibit C1 is the commission report by the Advocate Commissioner that establishes findings pertinent to the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Exhibit C2 is another commission report that further details findings of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between Shibu vs R. Rajagopalakrishnan et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Shibu vs R. Rajagopalakrishnan et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.