Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
Original Suit No. 345/2016

Case between Thottathil Pachukutty et al vs Thottathil Sulochana et al regarding recovery of possession of immovable property and mandatory injunction.

Court
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, KOZHIKODE
Judge
Smt. Shabeena M.
Order Date
2025-07-19
Duration
approximately-9 years 5 months
Case Closed
Sat, 07/19/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Thottathil Pachukutty et al, claim ownership over a property from which the defendant, Thottathil Sulochana, allegedly encroached and constructed a house illegally. The case involves disputes over property boundaries and title.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, allowing their claim for possession of the property and ordering the demolition of the unauthorized construction by the defendant.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Recovery of possession of plaint B schedule property and a mandatory injunction to demolish the portion of the building constructed by the first defendant.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, allowing their claim for possession of the property and ordering the demolition of the unauthorized construction by the defendant.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs provided valid title over the property and established unauthorized encroachment by the defendant.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs provided valid title over the property and established unauthorized encroachment by the defendant.
Supporting Evidence
The advocate commissioner has clearly identified plaint schedule in Ext C2(a) plan as GNQ) F based on Ext A1 and it is found to be in possession of first defendant who have encroached upon it.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit decreed as follows: 1) The plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of plaint B schedule property shown as plot "GNQ) F" in Ext.C2(a) plan from the first defendants, based on their established title under Ext. A1. 2) The first defendant is directed by way of mandatory injunction to demolish the portion of the building constructed by her upon the plaint B schedule property.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Thottathil Pachukutty
Party Age
65
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Byju
Party Age
37
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Shyju
Party Age
35
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Vijila
Party Age
33
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Thottathil Sulochana
Party Age
48
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Kakkodi Gramapanchayath
Relation
Represented by
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Jenmam Assignment Deed No.383/1984, Stop memo issued by Kakkodi Grama Panchayath, Copy of lawyer notice issued by Adv. A.J. Emmanual.
Defendants Documents
Building Tax receipts issued by Kakkodi Grama Panchayath.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Emmanual A.J.
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Tenison Thomas
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Shruthi K.
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sivanandan C.T.
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Anooj A.
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Vinod Singh Cheriyan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
T.M. Khalid
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Saranya O.
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sruthi C.M.
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Possession
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of plaint B schedule property.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs have valid title over plaint B schedule property by virtue of Ext A1.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to demolish the portion of the building constructed by her upon the plaint B schedule property.
Evidence:
The upshot of the above discussion is that the plaintiff has proved that he is entitled to recover possession...

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Jenmam assignment deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes ownership of the plaint A schedule property by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Documents tax payments made by the defendant for the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.B1 series
Document Type: Stop Memo
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Issued by Kakkodi Grama Panchayat in response to illegal construction by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notifies the Kakkodi Grama Panchayat regarding the illegal construction and demands action.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Provides findings regarding the encroachment and property identification by the Advocate Commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Details the encroachment and provides a survey plan for the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type: Survey Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Identifies the plaint B schedule property and its relationship to adjacent properties.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between Thottathil Pachukutty et al vs Thottathil Sulochana et al regarding recovery of possession of immovable property and mandatory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Thottathil Pachukutty et al vs Thottathil Sulochana et al regarding recovery of possession of immovable property and mandatory injunction.

Quick Facts

Location
Kozhikode
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Case Filed
Sun, 04/24/2016 - 12:00
Case Closed
Sat, 07/19/2025 - 12:00
From
Tue, 07/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Tue, 09/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Hathikka KV vs Nisha regarding mandatory injunction and compensation.
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Girija vs Arunjith P et al regarding mandatory injunction and other connected reliefs.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Muraleedharan vs Premanandan et al regarding fixation of boundary and injunction
COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Jose Antony vs K.D. Antony et al regarding declaration and consequential injunction.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF – I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Satheesh Charly vs The Calicut Cosmopolitan Club et al regarding declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, KOZHIKODE
Civil Suit Defendant Won