Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S No. 211/2021

Case between Santhamma vs Radhamani Raveendran regarding partition

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, PALA
Judge
Sri. Hasheem S
Order Date
2025-11-24
Duration
approximately-4 years 6 months
Case Closed
Mon, 11/24/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Santhamma and Lalitha Ramesan, seek partition of property inherited from their deceased mother Kamalakshi. The defendants, including Radhamani Raveendran and others, contest the claims based on a family settlement.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed the suit for partition, finding that the property is partible and establishing the shares of the plaintiffs and defendants in the estate of Kamalakshi.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
A preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit for partition, finding that the property is partible and establishing the shares of the plaintiffs and defendants in the estate of Kamalakshi.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiffs established their entitlement based on the family settlement despite the defendants' claims.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiffs established their entitlement based on the family settlement despite the defendants' claims.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiffs demonstrated that the family settlement deed executed by Kamalakshi clarified the distribution of her property among her children.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed, and a preliminary decree is passed as follows: The plaint schedule property is found partible, and it shall be partitioned.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Santhamma
Party Age
75
Relation
W/o Raveendran
Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Lalitha Ramesan
Party Age
61
Relation
W/o Late Ramesan
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Radhamani Raveendran
Party Age
65
Relation
W/o late Raveendran
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Ajithkumar @ Ajimon
Party Age
42
Relation
S/o Late Sasidharan
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Aneesh
Party Age
40
Relation
S/o Late Sasidharan
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Radhamani Sasidharan
Party Age
70
Relation
W/o late Sasidharan
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sarasamma
Party Age
65
Relation
W/o Late Balakrishnan
Plaintiffs Documents
Settlement Deed No. 535/1996, Settlement Deed No. 565/1996, Settlement Deed No. 534/1996, Sale Deed No. 139 3/1/04, Settlement Deed No. 777/1/1996
Defendants Documents
Agreement marked as Ext.B1

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Minimol Cyriac
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Johny Jose Nidhiri
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Lali Abrham
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Nisha Nirmala George
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
S. Hari
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Partition
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaint schedule property is found partible and shall be partitioned.
Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed, and a preliminary decree is passed as follows: The plaint schedule property is found partible, and it shall be partitioned.
Relief Type: Share Allotment
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiff No.2 is entitled to 5 cents of property as per the description in Ext.B1 family settlement.
Evidence:
The plaintiff No.2 is entitled to 5 cents of property, as per the description in Ext.B1 family settlement.
Relief Type: Share Allotment
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendant No.1 is entitled to 7 cents of property as per the description in Ext.B1 family settlement.
Evidence:
The defendant No.1 is entitled to 7 cents of property, as per the description in Ext.B1 family settlement.
Relief Type: Share Allotment
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Plaintiffs Nos.1, 2, and D1 are entitled to a one-seventh share each after property allotment.
Evidence:
The plaintiffs Nos.1, 2, and D1 are entitled to a one-seventh share each, after the property is allotted to plaintiff No.2 and D1.
Relief Type: Share Allotment
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendants D2 to D7 will receive 1/21 share each after the property allotment.
Evidence:
D2 to D7 will receive 1/21 shares each after the property is allotted to plaintiff No.2 and D1.
Relief Type: Share Allotment
Outcome: Granted
Description:
Defendants D8 to D11 will get 1/14 share each after the property allotment.
Evidence:
D8 to D11 will get 1/14 share each, after the property allotted to plaintiff No.2 and D1.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Settlement Deed No. 535/1996 of SRO, Kidangoor executed by Kamalakshi in favor of her son Sasidharan.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Settlement Deed No. 565/1996 of SRO, Kidangoor executed by Kamalakshi in favor of her son Balakrishnan.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Settlement Deed No. 534/1996 of SRO, Kidangoor executed by Kamalakshi in favor of her daughter Sushma.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Sale deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Sale Deed No. 139 3/1/04 of SRO, Kidangoor executed by Kamalakshi and her daughter Leela, transferring property to Shanthamma.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Copy of Settlement Deed No. 777/1/1996 of SRO, Kidangoor executed by Kamalakshi in favor of her daughter Leela.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Medical Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Medical Certificate dated 18.06.2025 relevant to the case.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Agreement
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
Agreement document executed by Kamalakshi and her seven children regarding the distribution of her property.
Reference:
Ext.B1

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Pala
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Santhamma vs Radhamani Raveendran regarding partition
Case Code Year
Case between Santhamma vs Radhamani Raveendran regarding partition

Quick Facts

Location
Pala
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Pala
Case Filed
Mon, 05/24/2021 - 12:00
Case Closed
Mon, 11/24/2025 - 12:00
From
Tue, 10/28/2025 - 12:00
To
Wed, 12/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Canara Bank et al vs Jancy Thomas regarding dismissal of suit
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF PALA
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Kerala Gramin Bank vs Hima K.S et al regarding settlement of suit.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF PALA
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Jilu Sebastian et al vs Mercy Pious et al regarding Suit dismissed as not pressed
MUNSIFF PALA
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Prakash P. M vs Anoop P regarding settlement of a suit.
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF PALA
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sukumaran Nair et al vs Thomas et al regarding realization of money
IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF PALA
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won