Case Summary
The plaintiffs, children of late Meenakshi, seek partition of the plaint schedule property, claiming equal rights with the first defendant, who is her second husband. The defendants contest this claim based on a prior Will and principles of res judicata.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is dismissed as the court found that the plaint schedule property is not partible and the plaintiffs have no valid claim. They are directed to pay costs to the defendants.
Key Reasoning:
The court upheld the validity of Will No. 95/95 and found the suit to be barred by the principles of res judicata.
The court upheld the validity of Will No. 95/95 and found the suit to be barred by the principles of res judicata.
Why Defendant Won:
The court upheld the validity of Will No. 95/95 and found the suit to be barred by the principles of res judicata.
The court upheld the validity of Will No. 95/95 and found the suit to be barred by the principles of res judicata.
Supporting Evidence
A perusal of Exhibit A3 judgment would invariably show that the Will No. 95/95 of SRO Ernakulam is the only Will and last Will executed by late Meenakshi and that it came to force after her death.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence the suit is dismissed. The plaintiffs are directed to pay costs of the suit to the defendants 6 to 8 herein.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Saraswathy Balan
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Rajamma
- Party Age
- 61
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- B.M Raman
- Party Age
- 82
- Relation
- C/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Venugopalan P. R
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Raju P. R
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Uhsa
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Pushpa
- Party Age
- 48
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
General Power of Attorney, Certified copy of Sale Deed bearing No. 2264/1986, Certified copy of Judgment in O.S 1415/2008
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of Plaint in O.S 1415/2008
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Frijo K. Sundaram
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Hirusheekesan S
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Babu Paul
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Varghese Prem
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
Plaintiffs requested for a partition of the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The suit is dismissed. The plaintiffs are directed to pay costs of the suit to the defendants 6 to 8 herein.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
General Power of Attorney
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document evidencing the authority given to the power of attorney holder of the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document demonstrating the ownership transfer of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Judgment
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Judgment from a prior suit (O.S. 1415/2008) considered relevant for deciding the case.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Plaint
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Document submitted in the prior suit that outlines the claims of the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Saraswathy Balan et al vs B.M Raman et al regarding partition
Case Code Year
Case between Saraswathy Balan et al vs B.M Raman et al regarding partition