Case Summary
The case involves a final decree application for partition filed by the petitioners against the respondents. The court ruled on the division of property as per a preliminary decree dated 29.09.2022.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Partition and separate possession of the property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court passed a final decree for partitioning the property as per the preliminary decree, allotting shares to the parties involved.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs demonstrated entitlement to specific shares as per the preliminary decree.
The plaintiffs demonstrated entitlement to specific shares as per the preliminary decree.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs demonstrated entitlement to specific shares as per the preliminary decree.
The plaintiffs demonstrated entitlement to specific shares as per the preliminary decree.
Supporting Evidence
As per the commission report the Advocate commissioner has stated that he has inspected the plaint schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
In tune with the preliminary decree for partition in the property the petitioners/plaintiffs have taken out a commission and the Advocate Commissioner had measured out the property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- MEETHALE PALOLLATHIL KANNAN
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- MEETHALE PALOLLATHIL KUMARAN
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- MEETHALEPALOLLATHIL LEELA @ MATHU
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- PUTHIYEDUTHU KUNNUMMAL KANNAN
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- PUTHIYEDUTHU KUNNUMMAL CHATHU
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- KUNIYIL KANNAN
- Party Age
- 67
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- KUNIYIL KANNAN
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- PUTHIYEDUTHU KUNNUMMAL GOPALAN
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Commission Report filed by Adv. V. Lathesh, Share List No. 1 to 9, Valuation reports.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. P. Balagopalan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Mini. K. Koyeri
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Krishnakumar. K
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The petitioners were allotted specific plots of land for partition and separate possession.
Evidence:
1) Plot D in Ext.C1 to C9 plan and plot B in Ext.C8 plan is allotted to the share of 1st petitioner and is entitled to get partition and separate possession over the same.
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The 2nd petitioner was allotted specific plots of land for partition and separate possession.
Evidence:
2) Plot D in Ext.C1 and C7 plan, is allotted to the share of the 2nd petitioner and is entitled to get partition and separate possession of the same.
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The 3rd petitioner was allotted specific plots of land for partition and separate possession.
Evidence:
3) Plot A in Ext.C9 plan, plot D in Ext.C3 plan is allotted to the share of the 3rd petitioner and is entitled to get partition and separate possession over the same.
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The 4th petitioner was allotted a specific plot of land for partition and separate possession.
Evidence:
4) Plot A in Ext.C2 plan is allotted to the share of 4th petitioner and is entitled to get partition and separate possession over the same.
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The 5th petitioner was allotted a specific plot of land for partition and separate possession.
Evidence:
5) Plot A in Ext.C8 plan is allotted to the share of 5th petitioner and is entitled to get partition and separate possession over the same.
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The 6th petitioner was allotted specific plots of land for partition and separate possession.
Evidence:
6) B plot in C1 and C3 plan is allotted to the share of 6th petitioner and is entitled to get partition and separate possession over the same.
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The 1st respondent was allotted specific plots of land for partition and separate possession.
Evidence:
7) The entire property in C4, C6 plan and C plot in C1 plan, B plot in C2 plan, F plot in C9 plan, C plot in C3 plan, A plot in C7 plan, B plot in C9 plan is allotted to the share of 1st respondent and is entitled to get partition and separate possession over the same.
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The 2nd respondent was allotted specific plots of land for partition and separate possession.
Evidence:
8) A plot in C1 plan, C, E plot in C9 plan, A plot in C3 plan, C plot in C7 plan, D plot in C9 plan is allotted to the share of 2nd respondent and is entitled to get partition and separate possession over the same.
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The 3rd respondent was allotted specific plots of land for partition and separate possession.
Evidence:
9) B plot in C7 plan, C plot in C9 plan is allotted to the share of 3rd respondent and is entitled to get partition and separate possession over the same.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court used the commission report to measure the properties and determine the shares allotted to each party.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Surveyor plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The surveyor plans were used to delineate the property and the specific shares assigned to each party.
Reference:
Ext.C1 to C9
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Meethale Palollathil Kannan et al vs Kuniyil Kannan et al regarding final decree application
Case Code Year
Case between Meethale Palollathil Kannan et al vs Kuniyil Kannan et al regarding final decree application