Case Summary
Sulaika, the petitioner and plaintiff, filed for partition and separate allotment of her share in the property. The case involves the respondents who are Mannenkara Mohamed's children.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The petition for partition of property was allowed, and a final decree for partition was passed. The properties were allotted to the parties as per the Advocate Commissioner's report.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The Advocate Commissioner effected division of property in an equitable manner in tune with the preliminary decree.
The Advocate Commissioner effected division of property in an equitable manner in tune with the preliminary decree.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The Advocate Commissioner effected division of property in an equitable manner in tune with the preliminary decree.
The Advocate Commissioner effected division of property in an equitable manner in tune with the preliminary decree.
Supporting Evidence
The Advocate Commissioner has reported that as per the measurement, the extent of the decree schedule property is 44.40 cents. Advocate Commissioner has valued 21.50 cents of property @ Rs.1,000/- per cent as Rs.21,500/- and 22.90 cents of property @ Rs.500/- per cent as Rs.11,450/-. Thus, the total value of the property comes to Rs.32,950/-.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the petition is allowed and final decree for partition is passed as follows: i. The plaint B schedule properties shall be divided into 480 equal shares by metes and bounds. ii. Property shown as 'FBKHG' in Ext.C2 Plan is allotted to the share of the petitioner. iii. Property shown as 'ABCD' in Ext.C2 Plan is allotted to the share of the 1st respondent. iv. Property shown as 'ECDF' in the Ext.C2 Plan is allotted to the second respondent. v. Property shown as 'GHIJ' in Ext.C2 Plan is allotted to the third respondent.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sulaika
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ashraf
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Basheer
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Fathima Beevi
Plaintiffs Documents
Extension C1 report and C2 plan submitted by Advocate Commissioner.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. M.K.Moosakutty
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. S.Hariharan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Final decree for partition is passed, allotting specific properties to each party.
Evidence:
the petition is allowed and final decree for partition is passed as follows:- i.The plaint B schedule properties shall be divided into 480 equal shares by metes and bounds.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This document contains the Advocate Commissioner's report regarding the partition of property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Commission Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
This document contains the Advocate Commissioner's plan for the partition of property.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Malappuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Tirur / Rent Control Court
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Sulaika vs Ashraf et al regarding partition of property
Case Code Year
Case between Sulaika vs Ashraf et al regarding partition of property