Case Summary
The plaintiffs are the wife and children of late Joseph, seeking partition of property previously owned by Joseph and the defendants. The defendants have filed a counterclaim for recovering money, claiming an agreement was made for selling the property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Partition of the plaint schedule property and a prohibitory injunction.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court passed a preliminary decree that the property is partitionable. The plaintiffs are awarded a joint share of 1/8, and the defendants each receive a 1/8 share. The counterclaim by the defendants is dismissed.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The property was found to be partible and the plaintiffs are legal heirs entitled to a share.
The property was found to be partible and the plaintiffs are legal heirs entitled to a share.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
It is an admitted fact that the plaint schedule property is one that was belonging to the father of the defendants 1 to 7 and late Joseph (the predecessor of the plaintiffs). It is also an admitted fact that the said property, after the death of the late Kurien, had passed on to these parties.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, preliminary decree is passed as follows: (a) The counter claim is dismissed. (b) The plaint schedule property is found to be partible. (c) The partition of the plaint schedule property shall be effected by metes and bounds separation of the plaint schedule property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Philomina Joseph
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Manoj Joseph
- Party Age
- 47
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Dalton Joseph
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Blossom Denny
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Philomina Blessy
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- N.V Paul
- Party Age
- 73
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Baby Thomas
- Party Age
- 71
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- N.V. Varghese
- Party Age
- 68
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- N. V. Kurian (Johny)
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- N.V. Sebastian
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of document No. 1658/1973, Photocopy of Death Certificate, Photocopy of Stop Memo issued by Cochin Corporation, Photocopy of Complaint filed before Sub Inspector of Police.
Defendants Documents
Agreement dated 15.05.2018, Agreement dated 26.08.2020
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P. D Tomy
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- P. D Jaison
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Ajith Viswanathan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Shibu Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Balram S.A
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sidharth P. Sasi
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Athira M
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs sought to prevent defendants from carrying out activities on the property.
Evidence:
Defendants are restrained by a decree of prohibitory injunction from carrying out any activities of a permanent nature in the plaint schedule property or from doing anything that affects the value of the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs requested a partition of the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The plaint schedule property is found to be partible. The plaintiffs are jointly entitled to 1/8 share in the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Counterclaim for Money
Outcome:
Dismissed
Description:
Defendants sought recovery of money from the plaintiffs.
Evidence:
The defendants are not entitled to any interest. The counter claim is dismissed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified copy of document
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proves the ownership of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Photocopy of Death Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the death of the predecessor of the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Photocopy of Stop Memo
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Shows requests made to stop unlawful activities on the property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Photocopy of Complaint
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicates an official complaint regarding activities affecting the property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Agreement
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Claims right over the property based on a sale agreement.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Agreement
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Another agreement supporting the defendants' claims.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Assists in understanding the property status.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Rough Sketch
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Provides a visual representation relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Addl. Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Further elucidates the situation regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.C2
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 Philomina Joseph et al vs N.V Paul et al regarding partition and permanent prohibitory injunction
Case Code Year
Case between Philomina Joseph et al vs N.V Paul et al regarding partition and permanent prohibitory injunction