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
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court accepted the Advocate Commissioner's report, allowing the petition and passing a final decree for partition.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The Advocate Commissioner effectively divided the property in line with the preliminary decree.
The Advocate Commissioner effectively divided the property in line with the preliminary decree.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
I hold a view that the Advocate Commissioner has effected division of property in tune 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
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sajeev
- Party Age
- 34
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kaliyammu
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Mukesh
- Party Age
- 39
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sasikala
- Party Age
- 29
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Preliminary decree for partition dated 14.09.2017
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Gopi Kadavath
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt.Mridula.N.K.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
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
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
Case Code
Case between Sajeev vs Kaliyammu, Mukesh, Sasikala regarding partition of property
Case Code Year
Case between Sajeev vs Kaliyammu, Mukesh, Sasikala regarding partition of property