Case Summary
Soopy Mambilakkool is the plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession of property. The defendants include multiple parties related to the property ownership dispute.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Partition and separate possession of the property
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court has passed a preliminary decree for partition, allotting shares to the plaintiff and certain defendants while dismissing the suit against others.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The claim of the plaintiff stands unchallenged and undisputed.
The claim of the plaintiff stands unchallenged and undisputed.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The claim of the plaintiff stands unchallenged and undisputed.
The claim of the plaintiff stands unchallenged and undisputed.
Supporting Evidence
On a perusal of plaint, proof affidavit, document submitted the claim of the plaintiff stands unchallenged and undisputed.
Judgment Evidence:
The plaint schedule property is divided into 16 equal parts and the plaintiff is entitled to get 3 such share over the plaint schedule property and is entitled for partition and separate possession over his respective share in metes and bounds.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Soopy Mambilakkool
- Party Age
- 71
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Pakran
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kunhabdulla
- Party Age
- 70
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kunhabdulla
- Party Age
- 67
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Kunhammed Panthalam Kandiyil
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Jamal Panthalamkandi
- Party Age
- 56
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of Partition Deed No. 302/1978 of SRO, Nadapuram
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. N. M. Rajagopal
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Adeeb Salah
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession over his respective share in metes and bounds.
Evidence:
The plaint schedule property is divided into 16 equal parts and the plaintiff is entitled to get 3 such share over the plaint schedule property and is entitled for partition and separate possession over his respective share in metes and bounds.
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to partition and separate possession over their respective shares.
Evidence:
The defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to get 3 such share each over the plaint schedule property and are entitled for partition and separate possession over his respective share in metes and bounds.
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants 4 to 9 are entitled to share conjointly.
Evidence:
The defendants 4 to 9 are entitled to get 4 such share conjointly over the plaint schedule property.
Relief Type:
Interim Relief
Outcome:
Not Decided
Description:
Plaintiff's request for a commission to measure out and effect partition.
Evidence:
The plaintiff shall apply for a commission to measure out and effect partition in the final decree proceedings.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Used to establish the plaintiff's claim of entitlement over the property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Nadapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Soopy Mambilakkool vs Pakran et al regarding partition and separate possession
Case Code Year
Case between Soopy Mambilakkool vs Pakran et al regarding partition and separate possession