Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.1466/2019

Case between Sunil Kumar et al vs Dhanya.S. Panicker et al regarding mandatory injunction and cancellation of sale deed.

Court
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-02-11
Duration
approximately-5 years 10 months
Case Code No.
1466
Case Closed
Tue, 02/11/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

This case involves plaintiffs Sunil Kumar and Sajudeen seeking a mandatory injunction against defendants Dhanya S. Panicker and Anil S.S. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants breached an agreement by selling property without their consent.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs failed to establish their entitlement to the relief sought.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs failed to establish their entitlement to the relief sought.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs did not prove the existence of a binding agreement post-December 2016, which invalidated their claims.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs did not prove the existence of a binding agreement post-December 2016, which invalidated their claims.
Supporting Evidence
The necessary ingredients for the grant of a permanent injunction were found to be absent in this case.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result; The suit is dismissed. No costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sunil Kumar
Party Age
58
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Sajudeen. M
Party Age
53
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Dhanya.S. Panicker
Party Age
38
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Anil. S.S
Party Age
37
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Agreement dated 07.04.2016, Sale Deed No. 2811/2019, Encumbrance Certificate dated 25.09.2019, Sale Deed No. 2777/2018.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. A. Chandrasekharan Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Karakulam P. G. Manoj
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Smt. Sunija M.F
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Smt. Saritha Chandran
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Mandatory injunction directing the defendants to execute a cancellation deed.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are seeking a mandatory injunction to execute a cancellation deed, thereby cancelling the Ext.A2 document.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.
Evidence:
The necessary ingredients for the grant of a permanent injunction namely, the prima facie case, the balance of convenience and the irreparable loss and injury are found to be absent in this case.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document outlines the agreement between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant regarding the sale of property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This is the certified copy of the Sale Deed executed by the 1st defendant in favor of the 2nd defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Encumbrance certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This certificate confirms the status of encumbrance related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This is the certified copy of another Sale Deed pertaining to a portion of the property sold by the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Book
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This book shows the statement of account regarding the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs for property development.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This report documents the inspection of the property and the condition of development works.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This sketch was prepared during the commission and shows the layout of the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2019

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Wed, 12/11/2019 - 12:00
Case Closed
Tue, 02/11/2025 - 12:00
From
Sat, 02/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 02/28/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Union Bank of India et al vs Midhun. M regarding rejection of plaint
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Purushothaman Pillay Divakaran et al vs Deepti Sivan regarding injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sreenath.S vs Thankarajan et al regarding dismissal of suit as not pressed
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sindhu.S et al vs Lalitha et al regarding withdrawal of suit
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Vanitha Sureshbabu Thilak vs Babu Chettiyar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won