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

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
O.S. No.416/2019

Case between Sasi vs Kumba et al regarding partition and permanent prohibitory injunction

Court
II Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam
Judge
Smt. Maneesha K Bhadran
Order Date
2024-03-30
Duration
approximately-19 years

Judgement document from eCourt website

Open judgment PDF (eCourt)
Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff Sasi, along with the defendants who are his siblings and mother, filed a suit for partition of their late father's property. The court found that the property is liable to be partitioned among them.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court issued a decree for partition of the property in five equal shares among the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff was declared entitled to a 1/5 share of the property.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Partition of the property by metes and bounds into five equal shares.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The property belonged to late Vayaroni and is liable to be partitioned among his legal heirs.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed and a preliminary decree of partition is passed as given under: 1)Plaint A schedule property is ordered to be partitioned by metes and bounds into five equal shares.

Parties Involved

Plaintiffs

Sasi (58 years) Malayilparambil House, Kusumagiri, Kakkanad

Defendants

Kumba (85 years) Malayilparambil House, Kusumagiri, Kakkanad, Kochi-30 Gopi (60 years) Malayilparambil House, Kusumagiri, Kakkanad, Kochi-30 Sivan (56 years) Malayilparambil House, Kusumagiri, Kakkanad, Kochi-30 Ambika (50 years) Pappakudathil House, Kusumagiri.P.O. Athani, Kakkanad, Kochi-30

Reliefs

Relief Type: Partition
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Partition of plaint A schedule property by metes and bounds into five equal shares.
Evidence:
I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 that plaint A schedule property is liable to be partitioned.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
Request for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from alienating or making any constructions in plaint B and C schedule properties.
Evidence:
As Plaintiff has limited his claim for partition of plaint A Schedule property alone, I am not inclined to grant permanent prohibitory injunction as sought with respect to plaint B and C schedule properties.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Power of Attorney
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is a Power of Attorney related to the plaintiff's claims in the case.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Copy of the pattayam
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as evidence of the pattayam in LA 384/1996 concerning the plaint A schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A2

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
Case Filed
Tue, 01/01/2019 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases