Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
Original Suit No. 126/2026

Case between Surendran vs Sathyapalan regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
Additional Munsiff - II, Kozhikode
Judge
Smt.ANJALI. P
Order Date
2025-12-08
Duration
approximately-4 years 20 days
Case Closed
Mon, 12/08/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Surendran has filed a suit against Sathyapalan seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction related to his property. The case highlights a dispute over access to property and boundary issues.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The suit filed by Surendran was dismissed for default as he was absent during the proceedings. However, the counter claim by Sathyapalan was decreed.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
The plaintiff is directed to remove the blockage from the way on the eastern side of the defendant’s property within 45 days.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit filed by Surendran was dismissed for default as he was absent during the proceedings. However, the counter claim by Sathyapalan was decreed.
Key Reasoning:
The counter claim was substantiated by the unchallenged testimony of the defendant and the documents produced during the proceedings.
Why Defendant Won:
The counter claim was substantiated by the unchallenged testimony of the defendant and the documents produced during the proceedings.
Supporting Evidence
The case of the counter claim plaintiff is proved by the unchallenged testimony of the DW1 and the documents produced by him.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the counter claim is decreed as follows: 1. The plaintiff is hereby directed to remove the blockage from the way on the eastern side of the defendant’s property within 45 days from today failing which the defendant shall be entitled to remove the same through the process of the court of law and realise the cost from the defendant. 2. The plaintiff their men and agents are restrained by permanent prohibitory injunction from obstructing the way to the defendant’s property and the lawful use and enjoyment of the same.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Surendran
Party Age
64
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sathyapalan
Party Age
65
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Deed No. 2683/1988, Deed No. 4882/1988, Deed No. 3320/1988 of SRO Chevayoor.
Defendants Documents
Deed No. 884/2020 of SRO Chevayor, Sketch of Defendants property, Photographs 4 Nos.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri V K Raveendran
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. P T Rajesh
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is directed to remove the blockage from the way on the eastern side of the defendant’s property.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is hereby directed to remove the blockage from the way on the easterm side of the defendant’s property within 45 days from today.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff and their agents are restrained from obstructing the way to the defendant’s property.
Evidence:
The plaintiff their men and agents are restrained by permanent prohibitory injunction from obstructing the way to the defendant’s property and the lawful use and enjoyment of the same.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff shall pay the costs of the proceedings to the defendant.
Evidence:
The plaintiff shall pay costs of the proceedings to the defendant.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Certified Copy Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document establishes the ownership of the defendant's property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Sketch of Defendants property
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This sketch illustrates the geographical layout and boundaries of the defendant's property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Photo Graphs
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
These photographs provide visual evidence related to the property dispute.
Reference:
Ext.B3 series
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This commission report was considered to assess the property and situation addressed in the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This sketch, created by the court commissioner, supports the visual understanding of the property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Obstruction of access
Case Code
Case between Surendran vs Sathyapalan regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Surendran vs Sathyapalan regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Quick Facts

Location
Kozhikode
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Case Filed
Wed, 11/10/2021 - 12:00
Case Closed
Mon, 12/08/2025 - 12:00
From
Mon, 09/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 12/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between P.A.Sajeed vs Muhammed Shihab regarding mandatory injunction and damages
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF -II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sadasivan et al vs Valiyedath Subhadra et al regarding partition
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF -II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Lakshmikutty Amma et al vs Kozhikode City Service Co-operative Bank et al regarding declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF -II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Padmini vs Yasodha P regarding perpetual prohibitory injunction
Munsiff-II, Kozhikode
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Girish .M vs Sreenivasan.M et al regarding partition of property
MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Defendant Won