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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 978/2024

Case between Celine George vs Thilothama Karthikeyan et al regarding issuance of a temporary prohibitory injunction

Court
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Rohit Nandakumar
Order Date
2025-10-14
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Celine George, the plaintiff, is seeking a temporary prohibitory injunction against Thilothama Karthikeyan and Angel Korreyas due to a dispute over property boundaries and alleged encroachment. The defendants denied the allegations and contended that the plaintiff's claims are without merit.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition seeking a temporary prohibitory injunction, determining that there was no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The court found no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favor of the petitioner.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, IA stands dismissed.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Celine George (66 years) 34/3212, Veliyil House, Kannayath Parambu, Mamangalam, Palarivattom, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, Pin - 682 025

Defendants

Thilothama Karthikeyan (64 years) Kannayath House, Mamangala, Palarivattom, Ernakulam, Pin - 682 025 Angel Korreyas (Age not specified years) Ambat House, Mamangalam, Palarivattom, Ernakulam, Pin - 682 025

Reliefs

Relief Type: Temporary Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The petitioner sought a temporary prohibitory injunction against the defendants to prevent them from interfering with her property.
Evidence:
The petition is therefore dismissed.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was presented to support the claim of ownership over the property by the petitioner.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Judgment
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This judgment was referred to as it relates to previous disputes involving the same property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Written Statement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document was referred to in the context of previous claims made by the petitioner's husband regarding the boundaries of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This report was referenced regarding the boundary measurements of the property in an earlier suit.
Reference:
Ext.B2

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases