Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Rejitha Mol R. and Renjitha Mol R., are the daughters of M.A. Raghunath, while the defendants are Renjith Kumar M.R, the son, and Geetha Reghunath, the wife. The case revolves around the partition of property belonging to their deceased father and allegations of misleading conduct by the first defendant regarding the execution of a partition deed.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the suit stating that the plaintiffs did not prove their claims regarding partition. It found that a prior partition deed was acknowledged and not challenged by the plaintiffs, thus rendering their claim invalid.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to provide evidence to support their claims regarding the partition.
The plaintiffs failed to provide evidence to support their claims regarding the partition.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs failed to provide evidence to support their claims regarding the partition.
The plaintiffs failed to provide evidence to support their claims regarding the partition.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs have admitted the partition deed No 3361/2008 of Ernakulam SRO and admitted that by virtue of said deed, the property of their father was divided between mother and their brother. The contention of plaintiffs is that plaintiffs have not received the amount set apart as share of value of property from 1st defendant though it was so promised by him. But it was denied by 1st defendant and 1st defendant contended that the deed itself admits the receipt of the said amount.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, suit is dismissed with costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Rejitha Mol R.
- Party Age
- 32
- Relation
- W/o Sreekumar
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Renjitha Mol R.
- Party Age
- 29
- Relation
- W/o Gireesh S.
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Renjith Kumar M.R
- Party Age
- 27
- Relation
- S/o Late Reghunath
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Geetha Reghunath
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- W/o late Reghunath
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Hari Menon
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Preetha Hari
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P Suresh
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Plaintiffs requested partition of the property.
Evidence:
Since the plaint schedule property was already partitioned, the plaint schedule property is not partiable. Therefore the plaintiffs have no right as of their own to claim partition of the property.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court references the partition deed to determine the entitlement of the plaintiffs and defendants regarding the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
deed No 3361/2008 of Ernakulam SRO
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Partition of property
Case Code
Case between Rejitha Mol R., Renjitha Mol R. vs Renjith Kumar M.R, Geetha Reghunath regarding partition
Case Code Year
Case between Rejitha Mol R., Renjitha Mol R. vs Renjith Kumar M.R, Geetha Reghunath regarding partition