Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Karthiyayini and Rajamma, are seeking partition of property that belonged to late Sri. Thevan. The defendants contest the description of the property and claim a different share distribution.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' petition for the appointment of an advocate commissioner to measure the property. It was determined that this petition was premature as the preliminary decree is yet to be passed.
Key Reasoning:
Why Defendant Won:
The petition was deemed premature and not necessary at this stage of the suit.
The petition was deemed premature and not necessary at this stage of the suit.
Supporting Evidence
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the IA stands dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Karthiyayini
- Party Age
- 78
- Relation
- W/o. late Sri. Kunjikuttan
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Rajamma
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- W/o. Late Sri. Narayanan
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sharadha
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- D/o. late Sri. Thevan
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Chandran
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- S/o. Late Thevan
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Krishnan
- Party Age
- 68
- Relation
- S/o. Late Sri. Thevan
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Gopi
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- S/o. Late Thevan
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K. Mohan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Joshi Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Aiswarya Mary Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- A. E Aliyar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Request for appointing an advocate commissioner with the assistance of the village officer for measuring properties.
Evidence:
the petition herein is premature and that there is no need for the deputation of an advocate commissioner as prayed for in the petition at hand.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Document
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
These documents establish the ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Nos. 541/1961 and No. 1603/1964 of SRO Mulanthuruthy
Document Type:
Document
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
This document details the transfer of 5 cents of land to the 3rd respondent.
Reference:
No. 2541/1994 of SRO Mulanthuruthy
Document Type:
Document
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
This document discusses the release of part of the property to the 4th respondent.
Reference:
No. 861/2000 of SRO Mulanthuruthy
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Oral submissions made by both parties during the hearing.
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Karthiyayini et al vs Sharadha et al regarding partition of property
Case Code Year
Case between Karthiyayini et al vs Sharadha et al regarding partition of property