Case Summary
Cyril. K. Thomas filed a suit seeking his one-half share in a property as per a Preliminary Decree. The court assessed the Commissioner’s report to finalize the property division.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Partition of property as per the demarcations in the Commissioner’s Report
Case Type
Partition Suit
Final Judgment
No
The Final Decree passed allows the plaintiff and the defendants to have their respective shares in the property as specified in the Commissioner’s plan.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court accepted the Commissioner’s report which accurately demarcated the property according to the Preliminary Decree.
The court accepted the Commissioner’s report which accurately demarcated the property according to the Preliminary Decree.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The Commissioner’s report and plan are found consistent with the preliminary decree and the mediation agreement. No valid objection has been raised.
Judgment Evidence:
Final decree is passed in accordance with Ext. C1 and C2. The portions marked F3, F4, F5, F6, and F3 in the Commissioner’s plan are hereby declared and demarcated as the one-half share of the plaintiff in the plaint-schedule property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Cyril. K. Thomas
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sherly Albert
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
No documents presented by plaintiffs.
Defendants Documents
No documents presented by defendants.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K. Madhavanpilla
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Suraj Krishna. B. S
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The portions marked F3, F4, F5, F6, and F3 in the Commissioner’s plan are declared as the plaintiff's one-half share.
Evidence:
Accordingly, the Commissioner’s Report (Exhibit C1) and Plan (Exhibit C2) are accepted as fair and proper, and the Final Decree is ordered as follows: Final decree is passed in accordance with Ext. C1 and C2.
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The portions marked F3, F2, F1, F4, and F3 in the Commissioner’s plan are declared as the defendants' one-half share.
Evidence:
The portions marked F3, F2, F1, F4, and F3 in the Commissioner’s plan are hereby declared and demarcated as the one-half share of the defendants in the plaint-schedule property.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Commissioner Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The report was accepted as fair and proper and formed part of the Final Decree.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The plan was accepted as fair and proper and formed part of the Final Decree.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Partition Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Cyril. K. Thomas vs Sherly Albert regarding partition of property
Case Code Year
Case between Cyril. K. Thomas vs Sherly Albert regarding partition of property