Case Summary
The petitioners are the defendants 2 to 4 seeking a final decree for partition. The original suit was filed for partition with a preliminary decree granted in favor of the plaintiff.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Final decree for partition.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
A final decree was passed in favor of the petitioners/defendants, separating their share of the property.
Key Reasoning:
The partition is just and equitable based on the report and plan provided by the commissioner.
The partition is just and equitable based on the report and plan provided by the commissioner.
Why Defendant Won:
The partition is just and equitable based on the report and plan provided by the commissioner.
The partition is just and equitable based on the report and plan provided by the commissioner.
Supporting Evidence
I am satisfied that the commissioner has effected partition of the preliminary decree schedule property in terms with the preliminary decree passed in this case. The partition effected by the commissioner is just and equitable.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, a final decree is passed in the following terms: 1.Plot abcd in C1(a) plan includes a portion of residential building. The said plot is separated and allotted to the share of petitioners/defendants.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Krishnankutty
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Suresh Babu
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Padmakumari
- Party Age
- 61
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Lailamani
- Party Age
- 68
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Valsala
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Lalitha
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Yamuna
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sarathkannan
- Party Age
- 43
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of the order in final decree application No. 3115/16 along with the plan.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Injakkal D.Pramod Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
A final decree is passed in favor of the petitioners/defendants separating their share over the scheduled property.
Evidence:
In the result, a final decree is passed in the following terms: Plot abcd in C1(a) plan includes a portion of residential building. The said plot is separated and allotted to the share of petitioners/defendants.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Copy of order of Final Decree
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court used this document to detail the final decree passed in the partition case.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Plan prepared and submitted by Advocate commissioner
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court used this plan to identify the partitioned property allotted to the petitioners/defendants.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Krishnankutty et al vs Lalitha et al regarding partition
Case Code Year
Case between Krishnankutty et al vs Lalitha et al regarding partition