Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.475/2021

Case between Vinod S Nair vs Sini Shafeekh et al regarding declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S, Principal Munsiff
Order Date
2025-06-11
Duration
approximately-5 years 5 months
Case Code No.
475
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Vinod S Nair, the plaintiff, filed a suit against Sini Shafeekh and others regarding the possession of a vehicle and allegations of fraud. The plaintiff claimed that he is entitled to possess a vehicle due to an agreement with the defendants, while the defendants denied any such agreement and raised various counterclaims.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the suit, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish credible evidence of ownership or possessory rights over the vehicle in question.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish credible evidence of ownership or possessory rights over the vehicle in question.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to establish the necessary legal basis for his claim, lacking evidence and credibility.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has failed to establish the necessary ingredients required for the grant of an injunction.

Judgment Evidence:

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

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Vinod S Nair
Party Age
45
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sini Shafeekh
Party Age
40
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Shafeekh Shihab
Party Age
41
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Manager, Toyota Financial Services India Ltd
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Dnyaneshwar Namdev Patil
Plaintiffs Documents
Original Vehicle Sale Agreement, Receipt, Owners Manual and Warranty Book of car, Navigation System Owners Manual, Tax License of the Toyota Fortuner Car, Original Battery Warranty Card, Original Bank Pass Book, copy of the complaint submitted by PW1
Defendants Documents
Original receipt

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. V. Manoj Kumar
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. A. Balakrishnan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. M.S. Mohammed Ansary
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent the defendants from taking unlawful possession of the vehicle.
Evidence:
the plaintiff has failed to establish the essential ingredients required for granting a permanent prohibitory injunction.
Relief Type: Declaration
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff claimed a declaration asserting his legal entitlement to be in possession of the vehicle.
Evidence:
the plaintiff has failed to adduce credible and convincing evidence to support his claim for a declaratory decree asserting legal entitlement to the possession of the Toyota Fortuner vehicle.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Original Vehicle Sale Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was produced to support the plaintiff's claim of purchasing the vehicle.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was presented as evidence of an additional payment made by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Owners Manual and Warranty Book
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
These items were marked to demonstrate possession of related documents for the vehicle.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Navigation System Owners Manual
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This item was marked to show possession of vehicle documents.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Tax License
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was presented as part of the vehicle-related documentation.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Battery Warranty Card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This was marked to support the claim regarding the vehicle's documentation.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Bank Pass Book
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was included to substantiate the financial transactions related to the vehicle.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Complaint to Police
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This complaint was submitted as a formal record of the plaintiff's actions regarding the vehicle.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Original Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This receipt was presented as evidence by the defendant to contest the claims of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.B1

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2021

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Thu, 11/11/2021 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Sun, 06/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Mon, 06/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
100%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Gladstone.D et al vs Lilibai et al regarding partition and injunction.
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Rajesh Balakrishnan vs Sunitha Sundar et al regarding partition and permanent prohibitory injunction.
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Syed Mohammed Sadik vs Suresh Babu. R.C regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and consequential reliefs.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Thulaseedharan.B. vs Bindu et al regarding temporary prohibitory injunction
Court of Additional Munsiff (RCC)
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Aravindan Nair et al vs Ramachandran Nair et al regarding partition and permanent prohibitory injunction.
THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won