OS. No. 466/2020

Case between Sreeji et al vs Sathyapalan et al regarding partition and injunction.

Court

THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLLAM.

Judge

Smt. Ragi.S.

Order Date

2025-09-29

Duration

approximately-5 years 2 months

Case Closed

Mon, 09/29/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiffs, Sreeji and Suji, filed a suit for partition and injunction against the defendants, including Sathyapalan and others. The case was dismissed for default due to the plaintiffs' absence.

Judgment Outcome

Judgment Favored

Defendant

Relief Granted

Case Type

Civil Suit

Final Judgment

The case was dismissed for default due to the plaintiff's absence and failure to adduce evidence.

Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff was absent and did not present any evidence.

Why Defendant Won:
Not available

Supporting Evidence

The plaintiff was absent and did not present any evidence.

Judgment Evidence:

Since the plaintiff remained absent not ready to adduce any evidence suit dismissed for default.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Sreeji
Party Age: 35
Relation: D/o

Party Role: Plaintiff
Party Name: Suji
Party Age: 42
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Sathyapalan
Party Age: 69
Relation: S/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Thankamani
Relation: W/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Sreeja
Party Age: 37
Relation: D/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Suseela
Party Age: 51
Relation: W/o

Party Role: Defendant
Party Name: Suresh Babu
Party Age: 55
Relation: S/o

Plaintiffs Documents

Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role: Plaintiff
Advocate Name: Jayachandra Tilak
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: Neeravil S. Anilkumar
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Party Role: Defendant
Advocate Name: K. Dharmarajan
Appearance Type: Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Injunction

Outcome: Not Decided

Description:

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for partition and injunction.

Evidence: