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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 582/2023

Case between Antony V.X vs Sibeesh Manoharan et al regarding temporary prohibitory injunction

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M.
Order Date
2025-05-24
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Antony V.X filed a petition seeking a temporary prohibitory injunction against Sibeesh Manoharan and Martin V.X. The case revolves around a property transaction where Antony claims the sale deed was executed as security for a loan, which was not fully repaid.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for granting a temporary prohibitory injunction. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The petitioner did not establish a prima facie case to warrant an injunction.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Antony V.X (60 years years) Vettakkal veedu, Kulayattikkara desom, Kulayattikara P.O, Pin – 682 317, Kulayattikkara village, Kanayannur taluk, Ernakulam

Defendants

Sibeesh Manoharan (45 years years) Mankuzhithundiyil, Thykoodam desom, Vytila P.O, Pin – 682 019, Punithura village, Kanayannur taluk, Ernakulam Martin V.X (51 years years) Vettakkal veedu, Kanjiramattom desom, Kanjiramattom P.O, Pin – 682 013, Amballoor village, Kanayannur taluk, Ernakulam

Reliefs

Relief Type: Temporary Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Seeking a relief of temporary prohibitory injunction restraining the 1st respondent from alienating the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
Since there is no prima facie case put forth by the petitioner, the question of balance of convenience and irreparable loss and hardship does not arise. Thus, the point is found against the petitioner.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the Sale deed no. 183/2020, which was used to establish the ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the Sale deed no. 1215/2019, relevant to the petitioner’s claim of ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Sale Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Sale Agreement dated 28.01.20, used to support the petitioner's claims.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Passbook
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Original passbook issued from Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank, showing transactions related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of the Land Tax receipt bearing Tandaper no. 5987, demonstrating the defendant's possession of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B2

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases