Case Summary
The plaintiffs, being the children of Kochayappan Gopalan, have filed a suit for partition and injunction against the defendants. The plaintiffs claim co-ownership of the property left by their deceased parents and seek their respective shares.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Restriction on the defendants from committing waste on the plaint schedule property until a final decree is passed.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court determined that the plaint schedule property is partible and ordered the partition into six equal shares among the plaintiffs and defendants. The court also granted a prohibitory injunction against the defendants to prevent them from committing any waste on the property.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The evidence presented by the plaintiffs was found credible and sufficient to establish their ownership rights over the plaint schedule property.
The evidence presented by the plaintiffs was found credible and sufficient to establish their ownership rights over the plaint schedule property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The evidence presented by the plaintiffs was found credible and sufficient to establish their ownership rights over the plaint schedule property.
The evidence presented by the plaintiffs was found credible and sufficient to establish their ownership rights over the plaint schedule property.
Supporting Evidence
The evidence of PW1 remains unchallenged in this respect. I am of the opinion that the defendants cannot be permitted to act in any manner that is detrimental to the rights of the plaintiffs in respect of the plaint schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, preliminary decree is passed as follows: i. The plaint schedule property is partible. ii. The partition shall be effected by metes and bounds by separation of plaint schedule property. iii. The plaintiffs 2 to 5 together are entitled to 1/6th share of the plaint schedule property. iv. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants are each entitled to 1/6th share of the plaint schedule property. v. The 4th defendant is entitled to 2/6th share of the plaint schedule property. vi. The defendants are restrained by way of prohibitory injunction from committing any waste upon the plaint schedule property that will affect the right of the plaintiffs in the plaint schedule property till final decree is passed in the suit at hand and separate possession is granted.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Murali K.G
- Party Age
- 65
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Geetha K.R
- Party Age
- 67
- Relation
- W/o. Late Murali K.G
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sinulal P.M
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- S/o. Late Murali K.G
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Aswathy P.M
- Party Age
- 39
- Relation
- D/o. Late Murali K.G
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Chithra P.M
- Relation
- D/o. Late Murali K.G
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Arundathi
- Party Age
- 61
- Relation
- W/o. Sukumaran
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rakesh
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- S/o. Gopalan
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sheela
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- W/o. Unni
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Biju
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- S/o. Gopalan
Plaintiffs Documents
Copy of Certificate of Purchase of Kudikidappu (Subject to Proof), Copy of Certificate of Death (Subject to Proof), Death Certificate issued by Tripunithura Municipality
Defendants Documents
Document No. 5496/2007
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- T.B Thankappan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- T.T Harikumar
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Ashish Vidyadharan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Soumya James
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Stalin James
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Rekha R
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- V. K Kishor
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- N. C Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Partition of the plaint schedule property into 6 equal shares.
Evidence:
The preliminary decree is passed as follows: i. The plaint schedule property is partible.
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are restrained from committing any waste upon the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The defendants are restrained by way of prohibitory injunction from committing any waste upon the plaint schedule property that will affect the right of the plaintiffs.
Relief Type:
Mesne Profit
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiff sought for mesne profits but was not entitled to it.
Evidence:
The prayer for mesne profit cannot be allowed and issue No. III is answered the plaintiff is not entitled to mesne profit as claimed for.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Copy of Certificate of Purchase of Kudikidappu
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked subject to proof as evidence of the plaintiff's claim to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Copy of Certificate of Death
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked subject to proof as evidence of the death of the original owner, aiding the succession claim.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Death Certificate issued by Tripunithura Municipality
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirmed the death of the original owner, relevant to the plaintiffs' succession claims.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Document
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Marked as evidence by the fourth defendant concerning his claim to the property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Murali K.G et al vs Arundathi et al regarding partition and injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Murali K.G et al vs Arundathi et al regarding partition and injunction