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

Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Save Case 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

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.

Why Plaintiff Won:
The property belonged to late Vayaroni and is liable to be partitioned among his legal heirs.

Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available

Supporting Evidence

It is not in dispute that plaint A schedule property belonged to late Vayaroni, the father of plaintiff and 2nd to 4th defendants.

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

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Sasi
Party Age: 58
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Kumba
Party Age: 85
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Gopi
Party Age: 60
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Sivan
Party Age: 56
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Ambika
Party Age: 50
Relation: W/o

Plaintiffs Documents

Power of Attorney, Copy of the pattayam LA 384/96

Defendants Documents

Nil

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: A.J. Anilkumar
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Krishob.K.Nair
Appearance Type: Assisting Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Thomas Abraham
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Anantha Padmanaban
Appearance Type: Assisting Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Lisha.M.G.
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: S. Hyma
Appearance Type: Assisting Counsel

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