Case Summary
The case involves Radha Amma's legal heirs and Radhakrishnan regarding the partition of property originally belonging to Kollekkat Ammu Amma. The plaintiffs seek a decree for partition of the property, claiming a new house constructed with the defendant's permission.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit for partition, allowing the plaintiffs to retain a newly constructed house while dividing the remainder of the property between the parties. The house was excluded from partition in favor of the plaintiffs.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found that the original plaintiff had constructed the house with the defendant's consent and that excluding the house from the partition served the interests of equity.
The court found that the original plaintiff had constructed the house with the defendant's consent and that excluding the house from the partition served the interests of equity.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found that the original plaintiff had constructed the house with the defendant's consent and that excluding the house from the partition served the interests of equity.
The court found that the original plaintiff had constructed the house with the defendant's consent and that excluding the house from the partition served the interests of equity.
Supporting Evidence
The court noted that the original plaintiff begun construction of the house with the defendant's knowledge and that he did not object until it was substantially completed, indicating implied consent.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed and the preliminary decree is passed as follows: I. The plaint schedule property shall be divided into 2 equal shares by metes and bounds. II. The Suppl. plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 are jointly entitled to get ½ share out of such 2 shares. III. The defendant is entitled to get ½ share out of such 2 shares. IV. The house in the plaint schedule property is excluded from partition and the Suppl. Plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are jointly entitled to reservation of the house.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Radha Amma
- Party Age
- 73
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Ambika
- Party Age
- 51
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Prasanna
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Beena
- Party Age
- 41
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Jaya
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Radhakrishnan
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Jenam Assignment Deed No. A1, Lawyer Notice No. A2
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.M.K.Moosakutty
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. S.Hariharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiffs are entitled to a joint share in the property and reservation of the house.
Evidence:
Therefore, I am satisfied that the house in the property is to be excluded from the partition.
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The defendant is entitled to a share in the property.
Evidence:
The defendant is entitled to get ½ share out of such 2 shares.
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Suppl. plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 are jointly entitled to a share in the property.
Evidence:
The Suppl. plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 are jointly entitled to get ½ share out of such 2 shares.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Jenm Assignment Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is referenced as evidence of the original ownership and transfer of rights over the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice was issued by the defendant to stop the construction of the house on the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court used this report as evidence to assess the situation related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court utilized this plan to understand the layout and dimensions of the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Partition of property
Case Code
Case between Radha Amma et al vs Radhakrishnan regarding Partition
Case Code Year
Case between Radha Amma et al vs Radhakrishnan regarding Partition