Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Smt. Sunitha and Kum. Anghaka Sahajan, are seeking a partition of property originally acquired by their deceased father, Sri. Manoharan. The defendants, including M.M. Amal Raj and others, are contesting the claims regarding the property ownership and division.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Preliminary decree for partition by metes and bounds.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaint schedule property was established as partible and the plaintiffs' claims were uncontroverted.
The plaint schedule property was established as partible and the plaintiffs' claims were uncontroverted.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed and a preliminary decree of partition is passed as given under; (i) The plaint schedule property is found partiable. (ii) The plaint schedule property is ordered to be partitioned by metes and bounds and the plaintiffs jointly are allotted 2/3rd share, with the remaining 1/3rd share jointly allocated to the defendants.
Parties Involved
Plaintiffs
Smt. Sunitha (45 years)
Choolezhathu Parambu, RC Road, Karuvelipady, Kochi-682005
Kum. Anghaka Sahajan (17 years)
Choolezhathu Parambu, RC Road, Karuvelipady, Kochi-682005
Defendants
M.M. Amal Raj (40 years)
Manalodi Parambu, Opposite White Fort Hotel, Bund Road, North Kundanoor, Maradu P.O., Ernakulam
Smt. Santha Gopi (56 years)
Kurpunezhathu House, Punnakaveli, South Paravoor, Poothotta, Ernakulam
Smt. Sujatha Pankajakshan (54 years)
Karithara House, East of Aroor Church, Aroor, Alappuzha District
Smt. Indira Puzhkaran (52 years)
Chakkalaparambil House, Near Water Tank and SH College, Thevara, Kochi
Smt. Anjana Sanalkumar (50 years)
Nikarthil House, TV Puram, Vaikom, Kottayom District
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Decree for partition of the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds.
Evidence:
The suit is decreed and a preliminary decree of partition is passed as given under.
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs are entitled to get separate possession of their respective shares.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs are entitled to get separate possession of their respective shares.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified copy of document
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Establishes the original acquisition of the property by Manoharan.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Certified copy of document
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further supports the ownership claims of the plaintiffs.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Certified copy of document
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Details the Will executed by Manoharan regarding property distribution.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Certified copy of document
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provides evidence of title related to the property in question.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Certified copy of document
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Further substantiates the claims related to the property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Encumbrance certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Confirms the status of the property over a specific period.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Encumbrance certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Additional evidence regarding the encumbrance of the property.
Reference:
Ext.A7