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
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
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.
Key Reasoning:
The court found no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favor of the petitioner.
The court found no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favor of the petitioner.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The petition filed herein is some sort of afterthought and that there exists no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner herein.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, IA stands dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Celine George
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Thilothama Karthikeyan
- Party Age
- 64
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Angel Korreyas
Plaintiffs Documents
Photo copy of Sale Deed No. 4801/1/1992, Copy of Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in RSA 904/2011
Defendants Documents
The Copy of Written Statement filed by the defendant in O.S 1458/2004, The Copy of Commission Report in O.S 1458/2004
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Dean Denizen Komath
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Shimimol S
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Anusree K
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K. B Rajesh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K.S Arunkumar
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Amrutha P.S
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Amrutha K.P
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Jerin Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Vijay Sankar V.H
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Devaraj Subramanian
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
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
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Celine George vs Thilothama Karthikeyan et al regarding issuance of a temporary prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Celine George vs Thilothama Karthikeyan et al regarding issuance of a temporary prohibitory injunction