Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 167/2025

Case between Abdul Samad vs P.M.Mirsad et al regarding interim injunction.

Court
MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M.
Order Date
2025-05-19
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Abdul Samad, the plaintiff, is seeking an interim injunction against P.M.Mirsad and others regarding a property dispute. The case revolves around allegations of illegal construction over a pathway claimed by the plaintiff as a public access route.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition for an interim injunction, ruling that the plaintiff failed to establish a valid claim over the pathway in question.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The court found no prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff and stated that the balance of convenience favored the defendant.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Abdul Samad (54 years years) Punnackal House, Railway Station road, Edappally, Cochin – 682 024

Defendants

P.M.Mirsad (37 years years) Parappath house, Cheranallur P.O, Ernakulam, Cochin – 682 034 M.M.Kunju Muhammed (75 years years) Maliam house, Edappally, Cochin – 682 024 Kadheeja Khader Pillai (70 years years) Mannath house, Thrikkakara P.O, Pin – 682 021 Souda Mohedheen (59 years years) Palathara house, Thottumugam P.O, Keezhmad, Aluva – 683 105 Shamlath (56 years years) Maliam house, Edappally, Cochin – 682 024

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Requested an interim prohibitory injunction against the respondent from obstructing use of plaint B schedule pathway.
Evidence:
Hence for the aforesaid reasons, the point is found against the petitioner. The petition is only liable to be dismissed.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Produced by the plaintiff to establish ownership of A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.P1
Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Produced to show prior partition and rights pertaining to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Is referred to establish the claim of property ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Produced by the defendant to claim ownership of B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Basic Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Demonstrates ongoing tax payments related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Building Permit
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Indicates that necessary permissions for construction were obtained.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type: Occupancy Certificate
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Confirms completion of construction per legal standards.
Reference:
Ext.B8
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Provided findings relevant to the use and occupation of B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1

Quick Facts

Location
Cochin
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases