Case Summary
The plaintiffs, who are sisters of the petitioner, are seeking partition of a property that is claimed to be solely owned by the petitioner. The petitioner argues that the plaintiffs have no legal rights over the property as it was inherited through family arrangements.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Plaintiffs are directed to furnish security amounting to ₹50,000 by depositing the same before this court within 1 month.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the petition filed by the defendant and directed the plaintiffs to furnish security for costs amounting to ₹50,000 for the proceedings.
Key Reasoning:
The court found that the plaintiffs, being residents outside India without sufficient immovable property in India, are required to furnish security for costs as per the CPC provisions.
The court found that the plaintiffs, being residents outside India without sufficient immovable property in India, are required to furnish security for costs as per the CPC provisions.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The mandatory language of the proviso to XXV Rule 1 of the CPC does not take away discretion of the court with respect to the quantum of the amount. Therefore, I am of the opinion that security to the tune of 50,000/- would be adequate in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the petition is allowed. Plaintiffs are directed to furnish security amounting to ₹50,000/- by depositing the same before this court within 1 month.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Pavizhakumari alias Pavizha Krishna
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Ushakumari alias Usha Pillai
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rajalakshmi
- Party Age
- 74
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- C.N.Sreekumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Manju Paul
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sabu P Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Anil Prasad
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K.S.Muhammed Shefin
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Beyon T Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Jithin Alexander
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sojan K Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Arun Krishnan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sudarsanan U
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Raghu Sreedharan
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Ajesh K Antony
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Jittu K Gills
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs are directed to furnish security amounting to 50,000/- for the cost that may likely be incurred by the defendant.
Evidence:
In the result, the petition is allowed. Plaintiffs are directed to furnish security amounting to 50,000/- by depositing the same before this court within 1 month.
Documents & Evidence
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Pavizhakumari alias Pavizha Krishna et al vs Rajalakshmi regarding partition of property
Case Code Year
Case between Pavizhakumari alias Pavizha Krishna et al vs Rajalakshmi regarding partition of property