Case Summary
The petitioners, Thankamma, Renuka Devi, and Usha, filed a suit for partition of property against defendants Subrahmanian Chettiyar, Seetha Lekshmi, and Anandammal. A preliminary decree was passed declaring a share over the property, and a final decree was sought to separate the shares.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Final decree for partition and separation of shares.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court passed a final decree for partitioning the property into shares as per the preliminary decree.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The petitioners were entitled to a final decree based on the preliminary decree declaring their share.
The petitioners were entitled to a final decree based on the preliminary decree declaring their share.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
I have perused the preliminary decree passed in this case and the commission report, mahazar and plan prepared by the advocate commissioner. I am satisfied that the commissioner has effected partition of the preliminary decree schedule property in terms with the preliminary decree passed in this case.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, a final decree is passed in the following terms: Plot shown in yellow colour by giving letters ABCFA in C1(a) plan is allotted to the share of the petitioners over preliminary decree schedule property and the share is separated.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Thankamma
- Party Age
- 72
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Renuka Devi
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Usha
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Subrahmanian Chettiyar
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Seetha Lekshmi
- Party Age
- 68
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Anandammal
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Affidavit and commission report.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. T. A. Venugopal
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Court
- Advocate Name
- Prince Kumar.G
- Appearance Type
- Government Pleader
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Final decree passed for partitioning the property according to the preliminary decree.
Evidence:
Hence the commission report, mahazar and plan are accepted and marked in evidence as Ext. C1 series.
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Petitioners shall be allotted their share of the property as shown in the plan.
Evidence:
Plot shown in yellow colour by giving letters ABCFA in C1(a) plan is allotted to the share of the petitioners.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The commission report was accepted by the court as supporting evidence for the final decree.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The plan submitted by the advocate commissioner illustrates the partition and was included in the decree.
Reference:
Ext.C1(a)
Document Type:
Mahazar
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The mahazar prepared by the advocate commissioner accompanied the commission report and plan.
Reference:
Ext.C1(b)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kollam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Kollam
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2018