Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Saraswathy, Rugmini, and Omana, filed a suit for partition and injunction concerning the property of their deceased sister, Bhargavy. The defendants, including Balakrishnan and others, dispute the claims, stating the suit is filed without good faith and seek dismissal.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The petition for partition and injunction was dismissed as the properties were found to be non-identifiable without proper demarcation. A commission report was required for fair adjudication.
Key Reasoning:
The properties were not identifiable, requiring demarcation for fair adjudication of shares.
The properties were not identifiable, requiring demarcation for fair adjudication of shares.
Why Defendant Won:
The properties were not identifiable, requiring demarcation for fair adjudication of shares.
The properties were not identifiable, requiring demarcation for fair adjudication of shares.
Supporting Evidence
Commissioner had also reported that, plaint B schedule property was also not identifiable.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence, the petition is to be dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Saraswathy
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Rugmini
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Omana
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Balakrishnan
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Raveendran
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sabu
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Radha
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Nani
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Document bearing No.5403/81
Defendants Documents
Not mentioned
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- G Santhoshkumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Biji Mathew
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Law Firm
- Legal aid counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- K M Alias
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P V Shiji
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Praju K Paul
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- P T Geevarghese
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Rohan Roy
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sanjay S
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Injunction
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The petition sought an injunction against the defendants to prevent them from alienating the property.
Evidence:
Hence, the petition is to be dismissed.
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The petition included a recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties.
Evidence:
Court fee is remitted for the relief of recovery of possession.
Relief Type:
Declaration
Outcome:
Not Decided
Description:
A commission report to identify and demarcate properties was sought.
Evidence:
It is necessary to obtain a commission report, by measuring the properties with the assistance of the surveyor.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Commissioner Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court referenced the commission report to note that the plaint schedule property is not lying demarcated and requires measurement to adjudicate the matter.
Reference:
I.A 3/2024
Document Type:
Title Document
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The court noted that the property devolved upon the plaintiff and respondents by virtue of this title document.
Reference:
5403/81
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court heard arguments from both sides regarding the property and the necessity for a commission report.
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kolenchery
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.
Case Code Year
2024