Case Summary
The case involves Sharon.S.P and Suvarnna Kumari.S as plaintiffs against Honey.S.P regarding a partition of property inherited from their deceased father, C.P. Paramanandan. They seek a decree for partition of the plaint schedule properties as co-sharers.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
A preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property into three equal shares.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the plaintiffs' request for partition, allowing them to share the property as demanded.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs' case was proven without contest, supported by the presented documents.
The plaintiffs' case was proven without contest, supported by the presented documents.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs' case was proven without contest, supported by the presented documents.
The plaintiffs' case was proven without contest, supported by the presented documents.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs case stands proved and unchallenged by Exts. A1 to A3 documents.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit decreed. A preliminary decree for partition is passed in the following terms. Plaint schedule property shall be divided into three equal shares by metes and bounds.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sharon.S.P
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Suvarnna Kumari.S
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Honey.S.P
- Party Age
- 46
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Original Sale Deed No. 39/1996, Original Sale Deed No. 1598/1978, Copy of Death Certificate
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- D.Chandra Babu
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- D.Sajeev Babu
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. S.Suresh Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree of partition of the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds.
Evidence:
In the absence of any evidence to show that there are other legal heirs, I am of the view that the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree of partition of plaint schedule properties as claimed.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Original Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext. A1 is the original sale deed No. 39/1996 dated 02/01/1996, showing ownership of plaint A and B schedule properties.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Original Sale Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext. A2, Original sale deed No. 1598 dated 22/05/1978 shows that Mr. Paramanandan is the owner in possession of plaint A and B schedule properties.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Copy of Death Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ext. A3 copy of death certificate evince that, said Paramanandan died on 02/05/2016.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Partition
Case Code
Case between Sharon.S.P et al vs Honey.S.P regarding Partition
Case Code Year
Case between Sharon.S.P et al vs Honey.S.P regarding Partition