Case Summary
Vijayan.V filed a suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction against Vidyadharan and Mini regarding a compound wall constructed on his property. The plaintiff claims that the defendants threatened to demolish the wall due to damage allegedly caused by trees on their property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction has been dismissed by the court, as the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary grounds for granting such relief.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the essential elements required for granting a permanent injunction.
The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the essential elements required for granting a permanent injunction.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the essential elements required for granting a permanent injunction.
The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the essential elements required for granting a permanent injunction.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has to make out all the three necessary ingredients for grant of permanent injunction with the aid of evidence, namely, the prima facie case, the balance of convenience and the irreparable loss and injury, if the injunction is not granted to him. In this case, all of the necessary ingredients for granting a permanent injunction are found to be absent.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result; The suit is dismissed. No costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Vijayan. V
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vidyadharan
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mini
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of the Sale deed No. 697/1984, Tax receipt, Tax receipt
Defendants Documents
Photograph
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Rajaprathap S.J
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Sreelekshmi. R
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. M. Harikumar
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Thonnakkal G. Rajeev
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Ajithkumar. S
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Sidharth. G
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Azim Basheer
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.
Evidence:
In light of the discussions in the foregoing issue, this court is of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the Sale deed No. 697/1984 proving ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Tax receipt evidencing tax payments related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Tax receipt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Another tax receipt evidencing tax payments related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Photograph
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Photograph submitted by the defendants purportedly contradicting the plaintiff's claims.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Commission report regarding the condition of the plaint 'B' schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Rough sketch prepared by the advocate commissioner related to the commission report.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2020