Case Summary
M M Chandrasekharan is the petitioner seeking relief against Santhamma and others regarding the execution of a decree. The case involves allegations of improper delivery of property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Execution Petition
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed EA No. 4 of 2025, finding the execution already conducted conforming to the decree. The decree holder is entitled to put up a permanent boundary.
Key Reasoning:
The delivery of property was found to be in conformity with the decree and there was no credible evidence to support the applicant's claims.
The delivery of property was found to be in conformity with the decree and there was no credible evidence to support the applicant's claims.
Why Defendant Won:
The delivery of property was found to be in conformity with the decree and there was no credible evidence to support the applicant's claims.
The delivery of property was found to be in conformity with the decree and there was no credible evidence to support the applicant's claims.
Supporting Evidence
On the basis of Ext. C1(a) and the Amin’s report, this Court is satisfied that delivery has been effected in conformity with the decree and the plan forming part thereof.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, EA No. 4 of 2025 is dismissed. The Amin’s delivery report is accepted and ordered to be recorded.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- M M Chandrasekharan
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Santhamma
- Party Age
- 85
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- L T Prasad
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- L T Pradeep
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- L T Prasanna
- Party Age
- 41
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Rajeev P Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Shaji A M
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
Application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of a surveyor.
Evidence:
EA No. 4 of 2025 is dismissed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The plan was accepted and made part of the decree for delivery of the decree schedule property.
Reference:
Ext. C1(a)
Case Classification
Case Type
Execution Petition
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between M M Chandrasekharan vs Santhamma et al regarding execution of decree schedule property.
Case Code Year
Case between M M Chandrasekharan vs Santhamma et al regarding execution of decree schedule property.