Case Summary
Thresiamma @ Omana claims ownership of a property and seeks a permanent prohibitory injunction against her neighbors, including Thankachan.P.P., regarding the encroachment of a pathway. The defendants argue that the property is part of a public embankment maintained by the State.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove her case for a permanent prohibitory injunction. Thus, the suit was dismissed.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff did not prove prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
The plaintiff did not prove prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff did not prove prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
The plaintiff did not prove prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has failed to prove a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of them.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Thresiamma @ Omana
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Thankachan.P.P.
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Joseph @ George
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Scaria @ Bosen Maniyan
- Party Age
- 65
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Lalu
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Yedulal
- Party Age
- 20
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of sale deed No.1474/1984 of SRO Vechoor, Tax Receipt No. KL 05051507872/19 of Vechoor Village.
Defendants Documents
Photos 3 in numbers.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.A.Shyla
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K.K.Sasidharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- B.Biju
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants from encroaching upon the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document establishing the plaintiff's ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document showing the payment of land tax for the property in dispute.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Photos
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Evidence provided by the defendants showing the disputed condition of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B1 series
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Official reports prepared by the Advocate Commissioner outlining the state of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1, C1(a), C2, C2(a), C2(d), C2(e), C3, C3(a) series
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Vaikom
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Thresiamma @ Omana vs Thankachan.P.P. et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.
Case Code Year
Case between Thresiamma @ Omana vs Thankachan.P.P. et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction.