Skip to main content
Niyamam AI- Beta Niyamam AI- Beta

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
Original Suit No. 273 OF 2015

Case between Sajeev vs Kaliyammu, Mukesh, Sasikala regarding partition of property

Court
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF TIRUR
Judge
Sri. JANKISH NARAYANAN
Order Date
2019-08-29
Duration

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Sajeev, the petitioner and plaintiff, filed a suit for partition and separate allotment of his share in a property. The court ordered a final decree for partition after considering the Advocate Commissioner's report.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court accepted the Advocate Commissioner's report, allowing the petition and passing a final decree for partition.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The Advocate Commissioner effectively divided the property in line with the preliminary decree.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition is allowed and final decree for partition is passed as follows:- I. The decree schedule properties shall be divided 4 equal shares by metes and bounds.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Sajeev (34 years) Thekkan House, Purathoor amsom desom, Padinharekkara, P.O. Purathoor, Tirur Taluk.

Defendants

Kaliyammu (63 years) Thekkan House, Purathoor amsom desom, Padinharekkara, P.O. Purathoor, Tirur Taluk. Mukesh (39 years) Thekkan House, Purathoor amsom desom, Padinharekkara, P.O. Purathoor, Tirur Taluk. Sasikala (29 years) Thekkan House, Purathoor amsom desom, Padinharekkara, P.O. Purathoor, Tirur Taluk.

Reliefs

Relief Type: Possession
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Final decree for partition allowing the petitioner to obtain a share of the property.
Evidence:
the petition is allowed and final decree for partition is passed as follows: I. The decree schedule properties shall be divided 4 equal shares by metes and bounds.
Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/- each to the respondents towards the deficient share value.
Evidence:
the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- each to the respondents No.1 to 3 towards the deficient share value.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Commission Report
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner regarding the division of property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type: Commission Plan
Submitted By: Court
Relevance:
Commission plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner showing the earmarked plots for allotment.
Reference:
Ext.C2

Quick Facts

Location
Case Filed
Thu, 01/01/2015 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases