OS.239/2022

Case between Ismail C. A. vs Salim et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction

Court

COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, PERUMBAVOOR

Judge

Smt. Sumey Chandran

Order Date

2025-10-29

Duration

Case Code No.

239

Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Ismail C. A. and Fathima, are seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to restrain them from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession of their properties. The defendants have allegedly created obstructions and conflicts regarding the plaintiffs' business operations.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won

Interim Order

The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' properties.

Judgment Favored

Plaintiff

Relief Granted

Permanent prohibitory injunction

Case Type

Civil Suit

Final Judgment

The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' properties.

Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs established lawful possession of the properties and demonstrated the defendants' unlawful interference.

Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs established lawful possession of the properties and demonstrated the defendants' unlawful interference.

Supporting Evidence

From the oral and documentary evidence, it stands clearly established that the plaintiffs are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties, having valid title and municipal recognition.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs as follows: The defendants, their men, agents, or any persons claiming under them are hereby restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from entering into or in any manner obstructing, interfering with, or disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint A-schedule and B-schedule properties of the plaintiffs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Ismail C. A.
Party Age: 51
Relation: S/o Aboobacker

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Fathima
Party Age: 45
Relation: W/o Ismail

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Salim
Party Age: 55
Relation: S/o Muhammed

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Salim
Party Age: 54
Relation: S/o. Kunjumon

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Faisel
Party Age: 40
Relation: S/o Usman

Plaintiffs Documents

Certified copy of sale deed No. 3698/2009, Certified copy of sale deed No. 3205/2009, Certified copy of sale deed No. 4226/2009, Certified copy of sale deed No. 3666/2002, Certified copy of sale deed No. 4029/2003, Certified copy of property exchange deed No. 4393/2009, Certified copy of sale deed No. 4175/1998, Certified copy of sale deed No. 6007/2013, Certified copy of sale deed No. 4784/2001, Land Tax receipt, Vengola Village Office, Internet Payment receipt, Building Tax receipt, Vengola Grama Panchayath Office, Copy of FIR No. 1263

Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: C. A. Navas
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Azeena K. E.
Appearance Type: Assisting Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Jasna K. A.
Appearance Type: Assisting Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Afeefa Thasnin
Appearance Type: Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction

Outcome: Granted

Description:

The defendants are restrained from causing any obstruction or interference with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession.

Evidence:

The defendants, their men, agents, or any persons claiming under them are hereby restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from entering into or in any manner obstructing, interfering with, or disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint A-schedule and B-schedule properties of the plaintiffs.

Relief Type: Costs

Outcome: Granted

Description:

The plaintiffs are entitled to realise the costs of the suit from the defendants.

Evidence:

The plaintiffs are entitled to realise the costs of the suit from the defendants.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Certifies the plaintiffs' ownership and title to the property.

Reference:

Ext.A1

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Certifies the plaintiffs' ownership and title to the property.

Reference:

Ext.A2

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Certifies the plaintiffs' ownership and title to the property.

Reference:

Ext.A3

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Certifies the plaintiffs' ownership and title to the property.

Reference:

Ext.A4

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Certifies the plaintiffs' ownership and title to the property.

Reference:

Ext.A5

Document Type: Property Exchange Deed

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Certifies the plaintiffs' ownership and title to the property.

Reference:

Ext.A6

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Certifies the plaintiffs' ownership and title to the property.

Reference:

Ext.A7

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Certifies the plaintiffs' ownership and title to the property.

Reference:

Ext.A8

Document Type: Sale deed

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance:

Certifies the plaintiffs' ownership and title to the property.

Reference:

Ext.A9

Document Type: Land Tax Receipt

Submitted By: Plaintiff

Relevance: