Case Summary
The case involves plaintiffs Vineetha Rani, Nirmal Raj, and Silpa alleging obstruction of water flow from their property by defendants Poothamkutti Vayalil Sasidharan and Koyamon M. The plaintiffs claim that their property is inundated due to defendants blocking the drainage.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit and counterclaim are both dismissed without costs. The court finds that the plaintiffs did not establish sufficient legal rights over the property in dispute.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to establish their legal rights over the allure property and did not sufficiently prove their claims.
The plaintiffs failed to establish their legal rights over the allure property and did not sufficiently prove their claims.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs failed to establish their legal rights over the allure property and did not sufficiently prove their claims.
The plaintiffs failed to establish their legal rights over the allure property and did not sufficiently prove their claims.
Supporting Evidence
The court finds that the plaintiffs have not pleaded the nature of their right over the plaint B schedule property, denying their entitlement to mandatory injunction.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit and the counterclaim are dismissed without costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Vineetha Rani
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- D/o.
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nirmal Raj
- Party Age
- 61
- Relation
- S/o.
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Silpa
- Party Age
- 23
- Relation
- D/o.
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Poothamkutti Vayalil Sasidharan
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o.
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Koyamon M.
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- S/o.
Plaintiffs Documents
Notary attested copies of Settlement deed, Will, Joint Release Deeds, and Gift Deed.
Defendants Documents
Certificate issued by Karannur Service Co-Operative Bank, Registration copy of joint released deed, and Registration copy of Verum pattay adharam.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. M.P. Radhakrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Viswambharan K.P.
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. A.K. Sukumaran
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction.
Evidence:
On considering my discussions in the preceding paras, I find that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for.
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs sought a decree of mandatory injunction to remove obstructions.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs have to establish that there must be an obligation on the part of the defendants to remove the obstructions in the plaint B schedule.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Not Decided
Description:
Defendant No. 1 sought a counterclaim for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the plaintiff from trespassing into the 1st defendant’s property.
Evidence:
Hence the first defendant prayed for a counterclaim to pass a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the plaintiff from trespassing into the 1st defendant’s property.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notary attested copy of Settlement deed executed by A.V. Thimothy in favour of Vineetha Rani.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Will
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notary attested copy of Will executed by A.V. Thimothy.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Joint Release Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notary attested copy of Joint Release Deed executed by Sheela Thimothy and Vineetha Rani in favour of Nirmal Raj.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Gift Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notary attested copy of Gift Deed executed by Sheela Thimothy in favour of Nirmal Raj.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Agreement entered into between A.V. Thimothy, Valsan and Aboobacker.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Statement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Statement filed by A.V. Thimothy, Valsan on the file of IA 5810/93 before RDO, Kozhikode.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Order
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Order in A-5810/93 of RDO, Kozhikode.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice issued by Municipal Corporation, Kozhikode Elathur regional Office to Vineetha Rani.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type:
Certified Copy
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Order u/s 133 CrPC issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kozhikode to Sasidharan.
Reference:
Ext.A12
Document Type:
Certificate
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Certificate issued by Karannur Service Co-Operative Bank, Elathur to Sasidharan.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Joint Released Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Registration copy of joint released deed executed by Kalyani and others in favour of Sasidharan and others.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Verum Pattay Adharam
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Registration copy of Verum pattay adharam executed by Vasu in favour of Moothoran.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission Report filed by Adv. Shyamjith P.B.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission Plan filed by Adv. Shyamjith P.B.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 1 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Vineetha Rani et al vs Poothamkutti Vayalil Sasidharan et al regarding permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Vineetha Rani et al vs Poothamkutti Vayalil Sasidharan et al regarding permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction