Case Summary
The plaintiffs, P.J. Bencily and Mary Seena, are seeking to raise the height of their wall due to disturbances caused by the defendant, Devaki. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence and did not qualify for the relief sought.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the application made by the plaintiffs for raising the height of their wall. The court determined that the plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
The applicants failed to show a prima facie case or that they would suffer irreparable injury.
The applicants failed to show a prima facie case or that they would suffer irreparable injury.
Supporting Evidence
Judgment Evidence:
In the result: The application is dismissed. No costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- P.J.Bencily
- Party Age
- 65
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Mary Seena
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Devaki
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Peroorkkada G Sudhesh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Dipu.D
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The applicants seek permission to raise the height of the east-side wall from its current height of 3 feet to 7 feet.
Evidence:
In light of the above discussions, this court is of the view that the applicants are not entitled to have the application allowed in their favour.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
O.S.NO.
Case Code Year
2019