Case Summary
Siyad, the plaintiff, seeks an interim prohibitory injunction against Ibrahim and others, claiming obstruction of access to a public road adjacent to his property. The defendants argue they have rights over the pathway claimed by the plaintiff, asserting it is a private road.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Interim prohibitory injunction granted.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court granted the plaintiff's petition for an interim prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from obstructing access to the claimed pathway.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioner demonstrated a prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favor.
The petitioner demonstrated a prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favor.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioner demonstrated a prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favor.
The petitioner demonstrated a prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favor.
Supporting Evidence
The respondent does not have ownership or right of exclusive possession over plaint A schedule property, and the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and hardship if the petition is not allowed.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence, the petition is allowed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Siyad
- Party Age
- 31
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ibrahim
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Hassianar
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sidique
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
True copy of the settlement deed no. 911/12 of Edapally SRO.
Defendants Documents
Photocopy of registered sale deed no. 4075/1964 of Edappally SRO.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.K.Nasseer
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.K.Sudheer
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Muhammed Asif Ali
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Samuel Santhosh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P.Chandresekhar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Anand Sankar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Interim prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from destroying the gate and obstructing access.
Evidence:
The petition is allowed. The petitioner has made out a prima facie case.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked as evidence for the purpose of this order, establishing the plaintiff's ownership of property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Submitted to support the plaintiff's claim regarding property ownership.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Re-Survey Plan
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Photocopy submitted as part of the evidence concerning property boundaries.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Municipality Records
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Details regarding the B-scheduled pathway supporting the claim of public access.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Photographs
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Photographic evidence submitted to support the plaintiff's claims.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Prior deed submitted by the defendants to establish their claim to the pathway.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Submitted as part of evidence regarding property ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Another document to support the defendants' claims about property ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Agreement
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Shows arrangements made regarding the private pathway access.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Complaint
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Complaint submitted by the first defendant to support their claims of obstruction.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Police Receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Receipt submitted to show prior complaints made by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report filed by an advocate to provide a professional assessment of the situation.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch accompanying the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Second commission report filed for further detail on the property situation.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Another rough sketch accompanying the second commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C2(a)
Document Type:
Photographs
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Set of photographs provided as part of the court's examination of the matter.
Reference:
Ext.C2(b) series
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 Siyad vs Ibrahim et al regarding interim prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Siyad vs Ibrahim et al regarding interim prohibitory injunction.