ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 387 OF 2016

Case between Kadeeja et al vs Muhammed et al regarding partition

Court

Court of the Munsiff of Tirur

Judge

Smt. Vincy.T.V.

Order Date

2017-10-30

Duration

Over 1 year

Case Closed

Mon, 10/30/2017 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Two plaintiffs filed a suit for partition against three defendants. The suit was dismissed for default due to the absence of the plaintiffs and lack of representation.

Judgment Outcome

Judgment Favored

Defendant

Relief Granted

Not Decided

Case Type

Partition Suit

Final Judgment

The suit for partition was dismissed for default due to the absence of the plaintiffs and no representation.

Key Reasoning:
Reason not clearly mentioned

Why Defendant Won:
Reason not clearly mentioned

Supporting Evidence

Judgment Evidence:

Suit for partition The Counsel for plaintiff reported that he has no instruction from his client. Name of the plaintiffs are called. Absent. No representation. Hence suit is dismissed for default.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Kadeeja
Party Age: 30
Relation: W/o. Ali

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Rehna
Party Age: 28
Relation: W/o. Shafi Thekkadath

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Muhammed
Party Age: 54

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Ali
Party Age: 52

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Moideen
Party Age: 50

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Pathumma
Party Age: 47
Relation: W/o. Hamza

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Muithutty
Party Age: 44

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Yoosaf
Party Age: 42

Plaintiffs Documents

Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Sri. C.Shanmughan
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Partition

Outcome: Not Decided

Description:

Partition of property among the parties

Evidence: