Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S No. 510/2022

Case between A.S.Nazim vs Ameena Sherif et al regarding property partition

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M.
Order Date
2025-01-25
Duration
approximately-2 years 8 months

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

A.S.Nazim filed a petition seeking the appointment of a receiver for property rights after not receiving her share from the estate of her deceased mother. The defendants, who are her siblings, contest her claim and assert that the property has been managed accordingly for over two decades.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the petition for appointment of a receiver, concluding that the petitioner did not demonstrate sufficient grounds to believe her property would be mismanaged. The current owners are deemed to have managed the property correctly over a significant period.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Key Reasoning:
The defendants maintained possession and proper management of the property for over two decades without dispute.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

A.S.Nazim (Age not specified years) Odamparambil house, Syed Mohammed Complex, C.P.Ummer road, Pullepady, Ernakulam, Pin – 682 035

Defendants

Ameena Sherif (Age not specified years) Beevi complex, Muslim women hostel, C.P.Ummer road, Pullepady, Ernakulam, Pin – 820 35 Shefeer (Age not specified years) Shihab (Age not specified years) Shemmi Basheer (Age not specified years) Saleema Majeed (Age not specified years) Alungaparambil, Syed Muhammed complex, Adv. Eswar Iyer Road, Pullepady, Ernakulam, Pin – 682 035

Reliefs

Relief Type: Appointment of Receiver
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The petitioner sought the appointment of a receiver for property management.
Evidence:
Thus, for the said reasons, the point is found against the petitioner.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The power of attorney authorized the petitioner’s brother to execute a partition deed.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The partition deed is related to the petitioner’s claim of a share in the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Certified copy of document
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document relates to a Joint Release Deed that the petitioner claims is fraudulent.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Lawyer Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice was issued on behalf of the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Photocopy of Document
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
This document pertains to the Joint Release Deed related to the case.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Building Plan
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Relevant for understanding the use of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Building Permit
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Demonstrates that the property has construction approvals.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Shows the tax status related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Further demonstrates the tax standing of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type: Building Tax Receipts
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Indicates multiple tax notices pertaining to the property.
Reference:
Ext.B6 series

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Sun, 05/01/2022 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
75%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases