Case Summary
Ahalya M, the petitioner, seeks a permanent injunction to prevent Aneesh M from creating rights for third parties over a shared access pathway. The respondent, Aneesh M, contests the petition, claiming ownership rights.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The petition for injunction filed by Ahalya M is dismissed, and the interim injunction granted is vacated.
Key Reasoning:
The petitioner did not establish a prima facie case nor demonstrate that the balance of convenience favored the injunction.
The petitioner did not establish a prima facie case nor demonstrate that the balance of convenience favored the injunction.
Why Defendant Won:
The petitioner did not establish a prima facie case nor demonstrate that the balance of convenience favored the injunction.
The petitioner did not establish a prima facie case nor demonstrate that the balance of convenience favored the injunction.
Supporting Evidence
When we read the afore analysis of the materials on record, predicated on the above quoted precedential propositions, it becomes ineluctable that the petitioner does not have a prima facie case warranting issuance of interim injunction as sought for.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, this petition is dismissed, and the interim injunction granted is hereby vacated.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Ahalya M
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Aneesh M
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of partition deed No.1820/21 of Kollam SRO, Land Tax receipt of Vadakkevila Village
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Latheesh.R
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Prasad
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Haripriya S
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sumith Mohan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Aswathy Thyagarajan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The petitioner sought a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent from creating any document or right in favor of third parties in respect of the C Schedule Way.
Evidence:
Reckoning all these relevant facts, I am of the definite opinion that the scale balance of convenience tilts against the granting of an injunction, as sought for, weighed with any standard.
Relief Type:
Interim Injunction
Outcome:
Set Aside
Description:
The petitioner sought an interim injunction during the pendency of the suit.
Evidence:
The petition is dismissed, and the interim injunction granted is hereby vacated.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the ownership and rights of the petitioner over the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document shows the petitioner's payment of land tax for the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This report was used to clarify the usage of the C Schedule property for access between the properties of the petitioner and respondent.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS
Case Code Year
2025