Case Summary
Jibu Mathew filed a suit against Aliyamma Thomas seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent her from dumping soil on the property. The plaintiff claimed that this action would obstruct drainage and likely cause flooding.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff failed to establish the defendant's intention to reclaim the property. The dismissal was based on the lack of evidence regarding the alleged obstruction of water flow.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff could not prove that the defendant was illegally dumping soil to obstruct the drainage.
The plaintiff could not prove that the defendant was illegally dumping soil to obstruct the drainage.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff could not prove that the defendant was illegally dumping soil to obstruct the drainage.
The plaintiff could not prove that the defendant was illegally dumping soil to obstruct the drainage.
Supporting Evidence
However, none of the brokers were examined by the plaintiff to prove the same. There is nothing before the court to come to a conclusion that the soil was deposited in the plaint schedule Item No. 2 property with an intention to reclaim the same.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Jibu Mathew
- Party Age
- 46
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Aliyamma Thomas
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- W/o George Philip @ Prasad
Plaintiffs Documents
Exhibit A1: Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 2686/1986, Exhibit A2: Basic Tax receipt.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Anil D Kartha
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Vinu Jacob Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Alby Abraham
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Bibin Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant from obstructing water flow through the canal.
Evidence:
As the plaintiff could not establish that the defendant was trying to reclaim the property by depositing the soil, the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff could not be allowed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 2686/1986 showing that Thomas Varghese obtained plaint schedule Item No. 1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Basic Tax receipt showing that Thomas Varghese was paying tax with respect to the plaint schedule Item No. 1 property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Commissioner Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Report and rough sketch prepared by the commissioner who visited the property and assessed the situation regarding soil dumping and water flow.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Jibu Mathew vs Aliyamma Thomas regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Jibu Mathew vs Aliyamma Thomas regarding permanent prohibitory injunction