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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 47/2025

Case between Jenin Daniel vs Canara Bank regarding injunction on property possession

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, PERUMBAVOOR
Judge
Smt. Sumey Chandran
Order Date
2025-09-12
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Jenin Daniel seeks an injunction against Canara Bank to stop them from taking possession of his property, claiming it is not part of a mortgage. The bank argues that the property in question is secured under a loan agreement.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court has allowed the petition and issued a temporary injunction preventing Canara Bank from taking possession of the property in question.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
temporary injunction restraining the first defendant Bank
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner established a prima facie case that the Bank was attempting to seize property not covered by the mortgage.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result:- The petition is allowed. The first respondent Bank is restrained by a temporary injunction from taking possession of the plaint A schedule property under the pretext of SARFAESI Act proceedings initiated against the second respondent and the alleged plaint B schedule property, pending the disposal of the suit.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Jenin Daniel (56 years years) Vandanathil House, Vengola Kara, West Vengola P.O., Kunnathunad Taluk, Arackappady Village, Ernakulam District, PIN- 683556

Defendants

Canara Bank (Age not specified years) Canara Bank Building, Perumbavoor, Perumbavoor P.O., PIN-683542

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The petitioner seeks a temporary injunction restraining the Bank from taking possession of the plaint A schedule property.
Evidence:
The petition is allowed. The first respondent Bank is restrained by a temporary injunction from taking possession of the plaint A schedule property under the pretext of SARFAESI Act proceedings.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Title deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The petitioner claims ownership of the plaint A schedule property through these title deeds.
Reference:
Nos. 1724/1991, 5979/1997, 4123/1999, 2636/2005, and 2637/2005
Document Type: Deed of Deposit
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The Bank claims possession documents, including the deed of deposit, to substantiate the mortgage.
Reference:
Document Type: Encumbrance certificate
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The Bank asserts it holds necessary documents, including the encumbrance certificate.
Reference:
Document Type: Tax Receipts
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The Bank claims to possess relevant tax receipts as part of its evidence.
Reference:
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The Bank includes a sketch among the documents it holds to support its claims.
Reference:

Quick Facts

Location
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Bank

Similar Cases