Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Johny N T and his daughter Catherine J, allege that the defendants, Joy N T and his son Tijo Joy, demolished a boundary wall separating their properties. The plaintiffs are claiming damages amounting to Rs. 5,30,000 due to this act.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was dismissed with costs as the court found that the plaintiffs did not prove their allegations regarding the demolition of the boundary wall.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendants demolished the boundary wall or caused damage to their property.
The plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendants demolished the boundary wall or caused damage to their property.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendants demolished the boundary wall or caused damage to their property.
The plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendants demolished the boundary wall or caused damage to their property.
Supporting Evidence
From the evidence adduced, this Court is not satisfied that the plaintiff has proved his case and proved that the demolition of the compound wall has been made by the defendants.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, Suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Johny N T
- Party Age
- 61
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Catherine J Nereveettil
- Party Age
- 31
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Joy N T
- Party Age
- 71
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Tijo Joy
- Party Age
- 39
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Exhibits A1 to A10 including FIR, valuation report, and betrothal invitation.
Defendants Documents
Lawyer notice from the defendant.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Santhi K S
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Alexy Augustine
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Latha Susan Cherian
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- George A Cherian
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K P Visakh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Damages
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
Plaintiffs requested compensation for the damages caused by the defendants.
Evidence:
The court is not satisfied that the plaintiff has proved his case and proved that the demolition of the compound wall has been made by the defendants.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Copy of judgment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The judgment from WP(C) 5275 of 2021 is provided as evidence.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Valuation Report
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The assessment report by a qualified engineer for reconstruction costs was submitted.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Betrothal Invitation
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves to establish the social context and timeline regarding the demolition incident.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Copy of plaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The plaint in O.S. 30/2021 is included for reference.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Injunction petition
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This petition relates to the preventive measures sought by the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The report issued during the commission process related to the boundary wall.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
FIR
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The First Information Report regarding the demolition incident is cited.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Final report
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The final report pending in CC 1212/2021 highlights the criminal allegations made.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Witness statement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This is a statement of witnesses filed along with the final report.
Reference:
Ext.A8(a)
Document Type:
Copy of Writ Petition
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The writ petition is referenced for additional context.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type:
Statement by Government Pleader
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides legal context and arguments from the Government's side.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendants is provided as response evidence.
Reference:
Ext.B1
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 Johny N T vs Joy N T et al regarding damages for demolition of boundary wall
Case Code Year
Case between Johny N T vs Joy N T et al regarding damages for demolition of boundary wall