Case Summary
The petitioner Meencherikkuzhiyil Sulaiha seeks a final decree for partition of property against the respondents Meencherikkuzhiyil Kunhimoosa and Meencherikkuzhiyil Nafeesa. The court evaluated a preliminary decree and the distribution of property shares among the parties.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Partition and separate possession of property shares
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court passed a final decree for partitioning the plaint schedule property into seven equal parts, assigning shares to each party.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court affirmed the preliminary decree for partition which had appropriately allocated shares of the property.
The court affirmed the preliminary decree for partition which had appropriately allocated shares of the property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court affirmed the preliminary decree for partition which had appropriately allocated shares of the property.
The court affirmed the preliminary decree for partition which had appropriately allocated shares of the property.
Supporting Evidence
The plaint schedule property is divided into 7 equal parts. Plot A shown in Ext. C2 plan which is of 21.043 Ares is allotted to the share of the petitioner/plaintiff and is entitled to get partition and separate possession over the A plot shown in C2 plan appended along with the report.
Judgment Evidence:
Thus as per the preliminary decree and judgment dated 10.07.2025 the parties are entitled to get their share over the plaint schedule property.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- MEENCHERIKKUZHIYIL SULAIKHA
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- MEENCHERIKKUZHIYIL KUNHIMOOSA
- Party Age
- 56
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- MEENCHERIKKUZHIYIL NAFEESA
- Party Age
- 50
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. N. M. Kuttikrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Partition and separate possession of the property amongst the parties.
Evidence:
The plaint schedule property is divided into 7 equal parts.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court used the commission report to determine the partition of the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Surveyor plan
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court used the surveyor plan in conjunction with the commission report to facilitate the property partition.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Document Type:
Valuation Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court considered the valuation report of Plot A for the final decree.
Reference:
Ext.C2 (a)
Document Type:
Valuation Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court considered the valuation report of Plot B for the final decree.
Reference:
Ext.C2 (b)
Document Type:
Valuation Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court considered the valuation report of Plot C for the final decree.
Reference:
Ext.C2 (c)
Document Type:
NJ Stamp Account
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The court included the NJ Stamp Account as part of the final decree.
Reference:
Ext.C2 (d)
Document Type:
Share List
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The share list was referenced for determining the shares in the final decree.
Reference:
Ext.C2 (e)
Document Type:
Share List
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The share list was referenced for determining the shares in the final decree.
Reference:
Ext.C2 (f)
Document Type:
Share List
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The share list was referenced for determining the shares in the final decree.
Reference:
Ext.C2 (g)
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between MEENCHERIKKUZHIYIL SULAIKHA vs MEENCHERIKKUZHIYIL KUNHIMOOSA et al regarding partition of property
Case Code Year
Case between MEENCHERIKKUZHIYIL SULAIKHA vs MEENCHERIKKUZHIYIL KUNHIMOOSA et al regarding partition of property