Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S No. 167/2025

Case between Abdul Samad vs P.M.Mirsad et al regarding interim injunction.

Court
MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M.
Order Date
2025-05-19
Duration
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Abdul Samad, the plaintiff, is seeking an interim injunction against P.M.Mirsad and others regarding a property dispute. The case revolves around allegations of illegal construction over a pathway claimed by the plaintiff as a public access route.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition for an interim injunction, ruling that the plaintiff failed to establish a valid claim over the pathway in question.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition for an interim injunction, ruling that the plaintiff failed to establish a valid claim over the pathway in question.
Key Reasoning:
The court found no prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff and stated that the balance of convenience favored the defendant.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner has failed to prove any balance of convenience in his favor and also that any irreparable loss and hardship would ensue upon him in case this equitable relief sought for is not granted.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Abdul Samad
Party Age
54
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
P.M.Mirsad
Party Age
37
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
M.M.Kunju Muhammed
Party Age
75
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Kadheeja Khader Pillai
Party Age
70
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Souda Mohedheen
Party Age
59
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Shamlath
Party Age
56
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Photocopy of the partition deed no. 966/22 of SRO Edappally, Photocopy of the complaint filed by the plaintiff before the Revenue vigilance officer.
Defendants Documents
Photocopy of Sale Deed no. 2173/2024 of SRO Edappally, Building Permit.

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
K.B.Rajesh
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Jose P Thomas
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
N.S.Mohammed Usman
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
P.Priyadevi
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Ashna T Ashik
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
N.M.Arshad Ameen
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
T.K.Ajith Kumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Aswani Jyothy A
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Shobhan George
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Requested an interim prohibitory injunction against the respondent from obstructing use of plaint B schedule pathway.
Evidence:
Hence for the aforesaid reasons, the point is found against the petitioner. The petition is only liable to be dismissed.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Produced by the plaintiff to establish ownership of A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.P1
Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Produced to show prior partition and rights pertaining to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Is referred to establish the claim of property ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Produced by the defendant to claim ownership of B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Basic Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Demonstrates ongoing tax payments related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Building Permit
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Indicates that necessary permissions for construction were obtained.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type: Occupancy Certificate
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Confirms completion of construction per legal standards.
Reference:
Ext.B8
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Provided findings relevant to the use and occupation of B schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Unauthorized occupation
Case Code
Case between Abdul Samad vs P.M.Mirsad et al regarding interim injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Abdul Samad vs P.M.Mirsad et al regarding interim injunction.

Quick Facts

Location
Cochin
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Thu, 05/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sat, 05/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between G Radhakrishnan vs M/s Goodhome Pvt. Ltd. et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between V.Thulaseedharan Pillai et al vs Prof. Sourier Sebastian et al regarding declaration and injunction
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between New Town Heights, Kakkanad Condominium, Owners Welfare Society vs M/s DLF Southern Towns Pvt. Ltd. et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Purushan O K vs Soman et al regarding injunction
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Kochuthressia Thomas vs Gopalan, Kalidasan regarding recovery of possession and injunction.
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Defendant Won