Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 180/2025

Case between Aloshious George vs Prakash P K regarding property disputes

Court
I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M.
Order Date
2025-09-15
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Aloshious George, the plaintiff, is contesting against Prakash P K, alleging illegal construction and encroachment on a private pathway linked to his property. The case revolves around the defendant's actions affecting the peaceful enjoyment of the plaintiff's residence.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court allowed the plaintiff's petition for an interim prohibitory injunction while dismissing the petition for a mandatory injunction concerning the construction of a boundary wall by the defendant.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Interim prohibitory injunction granted against the defendant's encroachment.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff established a prima facie case of illegal encroachment and demonstrated the risk of irreparable harm.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, IA No. 2 /25 is allowed and IA No. 5/25 is dismissed.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Aloshious George (62 years) Nedumkallel House, House No: 48/85, Kaniampuzha Road, Eroor P O, Ernakulam – 682 306

Defendants

Prakash P K (68 years) Pulimoottil House, Citadel Textiles, Valanjambalam, Ernakulam – 682 016

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The court has granted a prohibitory injunction against the defendant from encroaching upon the plaint B scheduled pathway until the suit is resolved.
Evidence:
The petitioner has shown a prima facie case in his favour and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner.
Relief Type: Mandatory Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The court refused to permit the petitioner to close the gap in the compound wall or to obtain a key for the gate installed by the defendant.
Evidence:
The defendant has failed to show any right over plaint B schedule property, and there exists no reciprocal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The sale deed evidences the plaintiff's ownership of the property in dispute.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The receipt serves to show the plaintiff's tax payment related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Building Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document confirms that the plaintiff has paid building taxes for the constructed property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Brochure
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The brochure was used to support the plaintiff's claims regarding the promised amenities.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Sketch
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The sketch aids in illustrating the layout and features related to the plaintiff's property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Sale Agreement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The document is provided by the defendant to support his claims regarding property transactions.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Sale Agreement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Another sale agreement used by the defendant to outline previous property dealings.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
A deed that shows the purchase of land by the defendant's relative, relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Photographs
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The photographs are used to illustrate the current state of the pathway and structures.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
This report corroborates claims made by the plaintiff about encroachments and property usage.
Reference:
Ext.C1

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases