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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No. 682 /2024

Case between Navas Sherief Basheer et al vs Gladis M Charly et al regarding temporary injunction.

Court
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Smt. Needi.K. Dinamany
Order Date
2024-12-10
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

This case involves a petition for temporary injunction filed by Navas Sherief Basheer and Sainul Abid against Gladis M Charly and others. The plaintiffs seek to prevent the defendants from using certain properties they claim ownership over, which the defendants contest.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The petition for temporary injunction was dismissed as the petitioners failed to prove ownership and a prima facie case regarding the properties. The court determined that the balance of convenience favored the defendants.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The petitioners could not establish exclusive ownership or a prima facie case.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, 1) Petition is dismissed.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Navas Sherief Basheer (32 years) Naseeb Manzil, SRM Road, Hamsakunj Lane, Ernakulam Village, Kanayanoor Taluk, Ernakulam- 682017 Sainul Abid (58 years) Sirangan House, Unity Lane, Deshabhimani Road, Kaloor Desom, Elamkulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Kaloor P O, Ernakulam- 682017

Defendants

Gladis M Charly (51 years) Kadambanatt House, Vallichira Village, Kudakkachira P O, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam- 686635 Tressa Joy (22 years) Maniyakuparayil, Poovathodu P O, Kondoor, Ampara Nirappel, Poovathodu Kara, Kondoor Village, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam, Pin- 686578 Anwar Sajith (52 years) Villa No. 17, ABC Homes, Judgemukku, Kakkanad Kara, Vazhakkala Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Thrikkakara P O, Ernakulam- 682021

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Request for temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from using properties A and B.
Evidence:
The petitioner has failed to prove a prima facie case in his favour.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Sale deed no. 2396/1/2023 of SRO, Maradu, establishes the plaintiffs' claimed rights over properties A and B.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Certified copy of Sale deed no. 978/1/2024 of SRO, Maradu, establishes the right of way relevant to the dispute.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Release deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of release deed no. 4259/2006, relevant to property history.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Power of Attorney executed by the 1st plaintiff in favour of Mr. T P Basheer, relevant to the representation of plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission Report filed by Adv. Anuros Martin, provides factual background related to the properties in question.
Reference:
Ext.C1

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases