Case Summary
This case involves a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction filed by Thomas Mannully and others against Abdul Jaleel and others. The plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendants from alienating the plaint schedule property after an agreement for sale made in 2008.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction as the plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case. The plaintiff's claims were found to be lacking since the previous agreement for sale had expired and allegations of the defendants' actions were not substantiated.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the injunction sought.
The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the injunction sought.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the injunction sought.
The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the injunction sought.
Supporting Evidence
Therefore, the amount due as per Ext A1 and the compliance of terms of Ext A1 cannot be sought by plaintiffs after entering into Ext A2 deed.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Yash Thomas Mannully
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Nishy Thomas Mannully
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sheethal Thomas
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Chanchal Thomas
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Philomina Thomas
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Abdul Jaleel
- Party Age
- 59
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Nazeer
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- K Venugopal
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Robin Roy @ Robin Antony Roy
- Party Age
- 33
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Original Contract to Sell plaint schedule property dated 02.01.2008, Agreement regarding Sale of plaint schedule property dated 27.08.2009, legal notices, and various receipts.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- G Santhosh Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Chithra R Shenoy
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- T R Harikrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The suit is dismissed with costs.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Original Contract to Sell plaint schedule property
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was referred to as the initial agreement for the sale of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Agreement regarding Sale of plaint schedule property
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was noted to have replaced Ext.A1 and indicates the terms agreed upon for the sale.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Copy of Sale deed no. 1441/97 of SRO, Kaduthuruthy
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was mentioned but its relevance was not detailed in the judgment.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Lawyer notice issued by the defendants
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was referenced concerning the defendants' communication related to the agreement.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Copy of Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was noted but specifics of its relevance were not detailed.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Lawyer notice issued by the defendants
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was part of the correspondence concerning the agreement's terms.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Copy of legal notice sent by the plaintiff
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was referenced regarding the plaintiff's formal communication with the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Postal receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was part of the evidence demonstrating the notice sent by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Returned acknowledgment card signed by D1
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document indicated that the first defendant received the notice.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type:
Returned acknowledgment card signed by D2
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document indicated that the second defendant received the notice.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type:
Returned acknowledgment card signed by D3
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document indicated that the third defendant received the notice.
Reference:
Ext.A11
Document Type:
Returned Registered Cover
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was referenced in relation to the notices sent to the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A12
Document Type:
Copy of certified copy of judgment in OS No. 109/15 of Hon’ble Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was mentioned but its relevance to the case at hand was not detailed.
Reference:
Ext.A13
Document Type:
Copy of certified copy of award passed in OS 109/15 in Lok Adalath
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document indicates related proceedings but its relevance to this suit is unclear.
Reference:
Ext.A14
Document Type:
Relevant page of news paper containing news about D1
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was mentioned but specifics of its relevance were not detailed.
Reference:
Ext.A15
Document Type:
Certified copy of Order in Bail application No. 7278/2011 of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was mentioned but its relevance to the current case was not explained.
Reference:
Ext.A16
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Thomas Mannully et al vs Abdul Jaleel et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Thomas Mannully et al vs Abdul Jaleel et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction