Case Summary
Plaintiffs seek partition of property previously owned by Ayyappathi Kunjimarakkar, now co-owned with defendants.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Partition of property as detailed in the judgment
Case Type
Civil Suit - Partition
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the partition of plaint B schedule property among the parties.
Why Plaintiff Won:
Plaintiff proved co-ownership of property and the necessity of partition through cogent evidence.
Plaintiff proved co-ownership of property and the necessity of partition through cogent evidence.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
As already stated the defendant opted to remain exparte, nothing is there to unruffle the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff proved his case by cogent and reliable evidence.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result the suit is decreed as follows: 1. The plaint B schedule property shall be divided into 324 equal shares by metes and bounds. 2. The plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to get 6 shares in the plaint B schedule property. 3. The plaintiff No. 2 and 3 is entitled to get 14 shares each in the plaint - B schedule property. 4. The plaintiff No. 4 and 5 is entitled to get 7 shares each in the plaint B schedule property. 5. Defendant No. 1,2 and 3 is entitled to get 48 shares each in the plaint B schedule property. 6. Defendant No. 4 is entitled to get 24 shares in the plaint B schedule property. 7. Defendant No.5 is entitled to get 108 shares in the plaint B schedule property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Pthummol
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- Wife of Ayyappathi Mohamedkutty
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Fakrudheen Ali Muhammed
- Party Age
- 39
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Jafer
- Party Age
- 27
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Kadeeja
- Party Age
- 36
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sauda
- Party Age
- 33
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Hydru
- Party Age
- 64
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Abdul Kareem
- Party Age
- 60
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Hamza
- Party Age
- 57
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Rukhiya
- Party Age
- 47
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Partition deed No. 342/1984, Document No. 2382/1990, Document No. 2577/1990
Defendants Documents
Not available
Advocates
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Partition of plaint B schedule property as per specified shares.
Evidence:
In the result the suit is decreed as follows...
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Key document used to establish co-ownership and partition
Reference:
A1
Document Type:
Document No. 2382/1990
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supporting document for partition
Reference:
A2
Document Type:
Document No. 2577/1990
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Supporting document for partition
Reference:
A3
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit - Partition
Category
Family Property and Partition
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Pthummol et al vs Hydru et al regarding partition
Case Code Year
Case between Pthummol et al vs Hydru et al regarding partition