Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No.1940/2013

Case between Suhara Beevi et al vs Subaida et al regarding mandatory injunction and recovery of possession.

Court
Additional Munsiff-I Court
Judge
Smt. Karthika.A.R
Order Date
2025-01-31
Duration
Case Closed
Fri, 01/31/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves the plaintiffs seeking a mandatory injunction and recovery of possession against the defendants regarding certain shop rooms and a residential building. The additional second plaintiff, who is the son of the first plaintiff, claims the defendants have been occupying the premises without proper rights.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, directing the defendants to vacate certain properties and allowing the plaintiffs to recover possession. The plaintiffs were also entitled to recover mesne profits.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Mandatory injunction to quit and vacate the plaint B and C schedule properties.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, directing the defendants to vacate certain properties and allowing the plaintiffs to recover possession. The plaintiffs were also entitled to recover mesne profits.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs established their case warranting the grant of relief sought for.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs established their case warranting the grant of relief sought for.
Supporting Evidence
From the uncontroverted testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 documents, the plaintiffs had established their case warranting the grant of relief sought for.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit decreed with costs as follows: Let the 1st defendant be directed by a decree of mandatory injunction to quit and vacate the plaint B and C schedule properties and failing which the plaintiff is entitled to realise future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Suhara Beevi
Party Age
68
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Najeev
Party Age
42
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Subaida
Party Age
47
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Maheen Kannu
Party Age
38
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copies of various orders and decrees related to the property.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Nizamudeen
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Hameed Nizam
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to quit and vacate plaint B and C schedule properties.
Evidence:
Let the 1st defendant be directed by a decree of mandatory injunction to quit and vacate the plaint B and C schedule properties...
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff entitled to evict and recover possession of plaint schedule properties from the defendants.
Evidence:
Let the plaintiffs be entitled to evict and recover possession of plaint schedule properties from the defendants.
Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff entitled to realize future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month.
Evidence:
failing which the plaintiff is entitled to realise future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff entitled to realize the cost of the suit from the defendants and their assets.
Evidence:
Let the plaintiff be entitled to realize the cost of the suit from the defendants 1 and 2 and their assets.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Certified copy of decree
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Used to establish ownership and prior court orders relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Certified copy of Order
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Used to support claims regarding prior tenant issues and rental agreements.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Certified copy of Order
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Referenced as part of the plaintiff's case establishing claims over the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Certified copy of Order
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Demonstrated prior legal context affecting the current claims.
Reference:
Ext.A4

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Suhara Beevi et al vs Subaida et al regarding mandatory injunction and recovery of possession.
Case Code Year
Case between Suhara Beevi et al vs Subaida et al regarding mandatory injunction and recovery of possession.

Quick Facts

Location
Thiruvananthapuram
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Tue, 01/01/2013 - 12:00
Case Closed
Fri, 01/31/2025 - 12:00
From
Wed, 01/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 01/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Union Bank of India et al vs Midhun. M regarding rejection of plaint
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Purushothaman Pillay Divakaran et al vs Deepti Sivan regarding injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sreenath.S vs Thankarajan et al regarding dismissal of suit as not pressed
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sindhu.S et al vs Lalitha et al regarding withdrawal of suit
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Vanitha Sureshbabu Thilak vs Babu Chettiyar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won