Case Summary
The petitioners, led by Irshad P.A., seek a temporary prohibitory injunction against the respondents, P.J. Chacko and others, concerning a property and crusher unit. The petitioners claim that they entered into an agreement for sale for the property, which the respondents are trying to sell to third parties.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the petition for a temporary prohibitory injunction sought by the plaintiffs against the respondents regarding the plaint schedule property.
Key Reasoning:
The petitioners failed to prove their possession of the plaint schedule property and the maintainability of the suit.
The petitioners failed to prove their possession of the plaint schedule property and the maintainability of the suit.
Why Defendant Won:
The petitioners failed to prove their possession of the plaint schedule property and the maintainability of the suit.
The petitioners failed to prove their possession of the plaint schedule property and the maintainability of the suit.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs/petitioners failed to prove the possession of plaint schedule property. Hence they cannot claim that a prima facie case is existing in their favour.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Irshad P.A.
- Party Age
- 31
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- K.K. Nasser
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nassim
- Party Age
- 47
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Ratheesh Pavithran
- Party Age
- 37
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- P.M. Basheer
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- P.J. Chacko
- Party Age
- 64
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mareeta
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Dr. Joshy
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mary
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of agreement for sale dated 15.06.2023, Copy of supplementary lease deed No. 666/2023, Copy of license form LE-3, Copy of registration certificate.
Defendants Documents
Copy of agreement for sale dated 23.11.2021.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Roy Thomas
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Rameez Nooh
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Fathima K
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Subeesh
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- George Kurian
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a temporary prohibitory injunction against the respondents.
Evidence:
The petition is dismissed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Agreement for sale
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The court referred to the agreement for sale executed on 15.06.2023 to assess the plaintiffs' claims regarding possession and rights over the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Supplementary Lease Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The court mentioned this lease deed as part of the documentation provided by the plaintiffs to support their claims.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
License Form
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The license form provided by the plaintiffs was considered as part of their evidence but was noted as a copy.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Registration Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The registration certificate was also listed as documentation submitted by the plaintiffs but noted as a copy.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Agreement for sale
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The court referred to this agreement to assess the defendants' claims regarding the property and the alleged prior agreements.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Exparte Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court used this commission report to evaluate the claims related to the functioning of the crusher unit and the plaintiffs' possession.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kanjirappally
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S
Case Code Year
2023