IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH, 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1930 FAO.No. 63 of 2008 (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2007 IN IA.385/2007 IN OS.47/2007 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: KHADEEJABI, AGED 60 YEARS W/O.LATE HASSAN, R/AT MOGRAL PUTHUR PUTHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: 1. P.S.MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O.P.S.SULAIMAN, PROPRIETOR OF MAC VIN CONSTRUCTIONS, R/AT P.S. BUILDINGS PALLAM ROAD, KASARAGOD. 2. BEEFATHIMA, AGED 49 YEARS W/O.K.A.ZAINUDDEEN HAJI, R/AT SAHANA MANZIL KOLLAMPADY, KASARAGOD VILLAGE AND POST KASARAGOD TALUK. 3. SHAFEEQ. K.C., AGED 45 YEARS S/O.KOYASANKUTY, FORMER BRANCH MANAGER OF LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD., KASARAGOD BRANCH (NOW UNDER SUSPENSION), PERMANENT RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.XXII/218, VIDYANAGAR, AYYANTHOLE AYYANTHOLE VILAGE AND POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. K.A.ABDULLA KUNHI HAJI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O.MAMMU HAJI R/AT KUNNIL HOUSE, K.K.ROAD, MOGRALPUTHUR PUTHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. F.A.O.NO.63 OF 2008 :-2-: 5. AABDUL NAZAR E.M.,AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O.ERIYAL MOHAMMAD, R/AT RASHIDA MANZIL ERIYAL, KUDLU VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------- F.A.O.No. 63 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Raman,J: This is an appeal against an order dismissing the application for injunction filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.47 of 2007. The suit is for cancellation of document stated to have been registered in favour of the first respondent who is none other than the son-in-law of the appellant. The allegation raised is that it is without knowledge and consent of the petitioner that title deed was taken away by the son-in-law and subsequently, the document was registered in his favour. In such circumstances, it was prayed for passing a temporary prohibitory injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the property. 2. The matter was contested by the respondents/defendants. Exts.A1, B1 and C1 were marked in the case. The trial court, after appreciating the FAO NO. 63 OF 2008 :-2-: evidence on record, found that the appellant/plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case for granting a temporary injunction. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in extenso. We have gone through the order of the court below. We find that the court below considered the evidence on record, balance of convenience and prima facie case and found that the appellant is not entitled for the interim relief by way of an injunction. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned in this appeal as no case is made out for such interference. Having exercised its discretion correctly by the court below, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Sd/- P.R.RAMAN, Judge Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge MBS/ FAO NO. 63 OF 2008 :-3-: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O.P.NO. OF 2001 ------------------------------------ FAO NO. 63 OF 2008 :-4-: J U D G M E N T DATED: -2007 FAO NO. 63 OF 2008 :-5-: