Sainudheen v. Muhammed Sali
Case brief
What is this about?
In a supervisory jurisdiction petition challenging a decree for 15 days detention in civil prison for violation of an injunction, the Court varied the sentence to attachment of the petitioner's family partition property for six months, noting the parties are brothers and the respondent was not keen on imprisonment. The right to seek recall or set-aside via fraud allegations was preserved.
What did the court decide?
Decree for detention in civil prison converted to attachment of the petitioner's family partition property.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/17TH KARTHIKA 1934
OP(C).No. 369 of 2012 (O)
OS.76/1993 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD
PETITIONER(S):
SAINUDHEEN,
S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, PULIMOODU ROADARIKATHU VEEDU CHITTUVEETU MURI, THOLICODE VILLAGE
NOW RESIDING AT REENA MANZIL, PULIMOODU.
BY ADVS.SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT(S):
MUHAMMED SALI
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a decree for detention in civil prison should be varied to one of attachment of property in a case of violation of an injunction decree between brothers.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek recall of the injunction decree on grounds of fraud or to set aside an ex-parte decree.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
SAINUDHEEN
- respondent
MUHAMMED SALI
Coram
V. CHITAMBARESH
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court