Case Summary
D. Vamadevan and his legal heirs have filed a suit for setting aside a partition deed and for partition of properties. The defendants are the brothers and children of the plaintiff's deceased sister, who dispute the claim of joint possession.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit and counterclaim were dismissed, with both parties suffering their respective costs. The court found that the plaintiff and defendants lost their rights in the properties due to adverse possession.
Key Reasoning:
The defendants proved continuous and exclusive possession of the properties.
The defendants proved continuous and exclusive possession of the properties.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiff failed to establish a joint possession over the disputed properties.
The plaintiff failed to establish a joint possession over the disputed properties.
Supporting Evidence
The documentary evidence on record, particularly the series of registered documents, shows continuous, open, and exclusive dealings with the plaint A and B schedule properties by the defendants.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit and the counterclaim are dismissed. On considering the relationship between the parties, both parties shall suffer their respective costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- D. Vamadevan
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Lalitha Bai
- Party Age
- 76
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Hari
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Heera.V.L
- Party Age
- 34
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ramachandran
- Party Age
- 83
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Vilasini
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Remadevi
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Radhakrishnan
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ajayakumar
- Party Age
- 47
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Beenakumari
- Party Age
- 36
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Settlement Deed No. 1874/2001, Settlement Deed No. 758/92
Defendants Documents
Settlement Deed No. 84/2003, Sale Deed No. 1252/14
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- S.Shenaji
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- S.Sreekumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- John George
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
A declaration that the Partition Deed No. 3104 of 1961 and Document No. 1282/1104 are false and fabricated, not binding on the deceased plaintiff.
Evidence:
the relief sought for setting aside the impugned documents relating to the plaint A and B schedule properties is barred by limitation.
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
For partition of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties.
Evidence:
the plaint schedule properties are not liable to be partitioned.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Settlement Deed No. 1874/2001 of SRO, Ezhukone.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Settlement Deed No. 758/92 of SRO, Kundara.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Settlement Deed No. 1656/2002 of SRO, Ezhukone.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1252/14 of SRO, Ezhukone.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Settlement Deed No. 2033/2006 of SRO, Ezhukone.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Settlement Deed No. 84/2003 of SRO, Ezhukone.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Settlement Deed No. 1951/1996 of SRO, Ezhukone.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Commission report prepared and submitted by Advocate Commissioner C. Valsala.
Reference:
Ext.C1 series
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between D. Vamadevan et al vs Ramachandran et al regarding Partition
Case Code Year
Case between D. Vamadevan et al vs Ramachandran et al regarding Partition