Case Summary
The plaintiffs, including Padmakumar and Vijayakumar, are seeking a partition of property and setting aside a compromise deed related to the estate of late Neelakandan and Chellamma. The defendants are the siblings and legal heirs disputing the claims made by the plaintiffs.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit for partition and setting aside the compromise decree is dismissed as the plaintiffs have acted upon the previous compromise decree. The court found that there was no basis to set aside the decree given that the compromise was deemed a final decision.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs could not establish grounds to set aside the compromise decree.
The plaintiffs could not establish grounds to set aside the compromise decree.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs could not establish grounds to set aside the compromise decree.
The plaintiffs could not establish grounds to set aside the compromise decree.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs have acted upon the compromise decree whereby they have settled their shares in favour of each other.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result suit stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Padmakumar
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Vijayakumar
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Reghunathan
- Party Age
- 53
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sarojini
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sambasivan
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ambujakshan
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Madhusoodhanan
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Premakumari
- Party Age
- 38
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
The copy of compromise decree, The copy of partition deed No.3165/1995, The certified copy of sale deed No.3856/1995, The certified copy of sale deed No.937/1996
Defendants Documents
The settlement No.1767/2022, The settlement No.1763/2022, The settlement No.1764/2022, The certified copy of final decree in OS.61/1996, The copy execution petition filed by PW2 on the basis of Ext.B5 decree.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.G.K.Namboothiry
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.V.Sambu Namboothiry
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.K.S.Gopinathan Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Sen.A.G.
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Sandhya. G.R
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a decree for partition of the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
the plaintiffs are not entitled for a decree of partition
Relief Type:
Setting aside Decree
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought to set aside the compromise decree in OS No. 61/1996.
Evidence:
the plaintiffs cannot approach this court with a suit to set aside the compromise decree
Relief Type:
Setting Aside Sale Deeds
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiffs sought to set aside the sale deeds No. 3856/1995 and 937/1996.
Evidence:
the plaintiffs are not entitled for [...] sale deed Nos.3856/1995 and 937/1996
Relief Type:
Permanent Injunction
Outcome:
Not Decided
Description:
The plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for.
Evidence:
is the plaintiff entitled for permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for?
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Compromise Decree
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was referenced to show the compromise reached in an earlier suit, which the plaintiffs sought to set aside.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was referenced as the partition deed that the parties had entered into regarding the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was mentioned as evidence that Sahadevan executed a sale deed conveying property to the second defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was mentioned as evidence that Sahadevan executed another sale deed conveying property to the first defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document was referenced as a settlement deed executed in favour of the second plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document was referenced as a settlement deed executed in favour of the sixth defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document was referenced as another settlement deed executed in favour of the first plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Settlement Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document was referenced as a settlement deed executed in favour of the sixth defendant.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Final Decree
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document was referenced as the certified copy of the final decree in a related suit.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Execution Petition
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document was referenced as the execution petition filed based on the final decree.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Impleading Petition
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
This document was referenced as the certified copy of the impleading petition filed in a related suit.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Padmakumar et al vs Sarojini et al regarding partition and setting aside documents
Case Code Year
Case between Padmakumar et al vs Sarojini et al regarding partition and setting aside documents