Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.1250/2023

Case between M.I. Shanavas Khan vs Ansar.H et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.

Court
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-08-04
Duration
approximately-2 years 1 month 21 days
Case Code No.
1250
Case Closed
Mon, 08/04/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

M.I. Shanavas Khan is the plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction against Ansar.H and others, who are accused of unlawfully attempting to take possession of the plaintiff's property to construct a Dargah. The defendants threatened the plaintiff and attempted to trespass into the property.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction against the defendants from trespassing and obstructing the plaintiff's development of the property. The defendants are also ordered to pay the costs of the suit.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from trespassing and obstructing the plaintiff's property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction against the defendants from trespassing and obstructing the plaintiff's development of the property. The defendants are also ordered to pay the costs of the suit.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established a prima facie case with evidence of title and possession over the property, and demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable injury without the injunction.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff established a prima facie case with evidence of title and possession over the property, and demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable injury without the injunction.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has established a prima facie case by producing the Ext.A2 evidencing his title and possession over the plaint schedule property.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result; The suit is decreed as follows: (a) Let the defendants 1 to 4 and their agents be perpetually restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or from taking forcible possession of any portion of the plaint schedule property.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
M.I. Shanavas Khan
Party Age
54
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Ansar.H
Party Age
38
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Azeem.N
Party Age
34
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Jaseem.M
Party Age
35
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Mohammed Fizy
Party Age
35
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Original Power of Attorney, Certified copy of the sale deed No.3203/2016
Defendants Documents
Court Exhibits: C1 & C1(a) 10/07/2023 Commission report and rough Sketch

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. R. Vishnu Raj
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendants 1 to 4 and their agents are permanently restrained from trespassing and taking possession of the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
Let the defendants 1 to 4 and their agents be perpetually restrained from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or from taking forcible possession of any portion of the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendants 1 to 4 are restrained from obstructing the plaintiff from developing the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
Let the defendants 1 to 4 and their agents be perpetually restrained from obstructing the plaintiff from developing the plaint schedule property in accordance with relevant Building Rules.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to recover the costs of the suit from the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to realise the costs of the suit from the defendants and their assets.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The plaintiff's power of attorney was marked as evidence for the case.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document certifies the plaintiff's title to the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This report provided evidence about the nature and status of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Rough Sketch
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This sketch visually represented the layout of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Injunction and Access Rights
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2023

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Wed, 06/14/2023 - 12:00
Case Closed
Mon, 08/04/2025 - 12:00
From
Fri, 08/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 08/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Dr.Cine Supriya V.R vs State of Kerala et al regarding temporary injunction against sewage line construction.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between K.P.Sanilkumar vs Kerala State et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M/S EDS Structures Private Limited vs M/s Excalibur Group Private Ltd regarding Permanent prohibitory injunction
Court of Additional Munsiff-RCC
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between C.S.Sudhan vs Abraham Paul et al regarding injunction.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between K. Prathap kumar et al vs Sheela regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won