Case Summary
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking separate allotment of their share in the property through a preliminary decree. An interlocutory application was made for the appointment of an advocate commissioner to effect the final decree for property division by mets and bounds.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Petitioner
Relief Granted
Partition of property and separate allotment of shares
Case Type
Civil Suit - Partition
Final Judgment
No
The court accepted the commissioner's report and plan for final decree granting separate allotment of shares to the respective parties based on the expert valuation of the properties.
Key Reasoning:
The petitioner was found entitled to one share out of eight shares for the properties in question based on the preliminary decree.
The petitioner was found entitled to one share out of eight shares for the properties in question based on the preliminary decree.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The petitioner was found entitled to one share out of eight shares for the properties in question based on the preliminary decree.
The petitioner was found entitled to one share out of eight shares for the properties in question based on the preliminary decree.
Supporting Evidence
As per preliminary decree, the petitioner was entitled to one share out of eight shares. The advocate commissioner's valuation and allocation of properties were considered just and equitable.
Judgment Evidence:
No objection was filed by the petitioner or respondent to the commissioner report. On going through the commissioner report and hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent I hold a view that the Advocate Commissioner has effected division of the property in an equitable manner. Therefore I hold a view that the commissioner's report and plan can be accepted for final decree for the partition can be passed. The point is found in favour of the petitioner.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Komban Thodiyil Viswanathan
- Party Age
- 52
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- K.T.Sarada
- Party Age
- 71
- Relation
- W/o. Chandrasekharan Master
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- K.T.Janaki
- Party Age
- 67
- Relation
- W/o. Raman Panicker
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- K.T.Gopalakrishnan
- Party Age
- 65
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- K.T.Subhadra
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- W/o. Narayanan Nair
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- K.T.Bharathi
- Party Age
- 61
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- K.T.Vasanthakumari
- Party Age
- 59
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- K.T.Sivadasan
- Party Age
- 57
Plaintiffs Documents
Nil
Defendants Documents
Nil
Advocates
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Separate allotment of shares to each party based on the expert valuation of properties
Evidence:
No objection was filed by the petitioner or respondent to the commissioner report. On going through the commissioner report and hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent I hold a view that the Advocate Commissioner has effected division of the property in an equitable manner.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Submitted by Sri.K.P.Asok kumar, Advocate Commissioner, Tirur
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Plan
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Submitted by Sri.K.P.Asok kumar, Advocate Commissioner, Tirur
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Commission Plan
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
Submitted by Sri.K.P.Asok kumar, Advocate Commissioner, Tirur
Reference:
Ext.C3
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit - Partition
Category
Family Property and Partition
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Property Partition
Case Code
Case between Komban Thodiyil Viswanathan vs Komban Thodiyil Narayani Amma's children et al regarding property partition
Case Code Year
Case between Komban Thodiyil Viswanathan vs Komban Thodiyil Narayani Amma's children et al regarding property partition