Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS. No.929/2014

Case between G. Shanmughan vs Dhanalekshmy et al regarding transposition of defendants as additional plaintiffs.

Court
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF -I
Judge
Sri.Manesh. S.V
Order Date
2025-07-07
Duration
approximately-10 years 0 days
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

G. Shanmughan, the plaintiff, has filed a petition to transpose his daughters, who are defendants in the suit, as additional plaintiffs. The defendants opposed this petition, arguing that it should not be granted as they did not consent to this change.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the plaintiff's application to transpose the defendants as additional plaintiffs due to lack of consent from the defendants.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the plaintiff's application to transpose the defendants as additional plaintiffs due to lack of consent from the defendants.
Key Reasoning:
The court found no valid grounds for allowing the transposition of defendants as additional plaintiffs.
Why Defendant Won:
The court found no valid grounds for allowing the transposition of defendants as additional plaintiffs.
Supporting Evidence
Having regard to the above, I am of the view that there are no sufficient or valid grounds to allow the prayer for transposition.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
G. Shanmughan
Party Age
77
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Dhanalekshmy
Party Age
61
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
V. Padmanabhan
Party Age
64
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Mithralekshmi
Party Age
42
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Nithya Lekshmi
Party Age
40
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Krishna Lekshmi
Party Age
35
Relation
D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri.Rajaprathap. S.J
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri.Muraleedharan Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Other
Outcome: Rejected
Description:
Request to transpose defendants three to five as additional plaintiffs two to four.
Evidence:
Having regard to the above, I am of the view that there are no sufficient or valid grounds to allow the prayer for transposition.

Documents & Evidence

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 G. Shanmughan vs Dhanalekshmy et al regarding transposition of defendants as additional plaintiffs.
Case Code Year
Case between G. Shanmughan vs Dhanalekshmy et al regarding transposition of defendants as additional plaintiffs.

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Wed, 01/01/2014 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Tue, 07/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Thu, 07/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
80%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Union Bank of India et al vs Midhun. M regarding rejection of plaint
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Purushothaman Pillay Divakaran et al vs Deepti Sivan regarding injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Sreenath.S vs Thankarajan et al regarding dismissal of suit as not pressed
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sindhu.S et al vs Lalitha et al regarding withdrawal of suit
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Vanitha Sureshbabu Thilak vs Babu Chettiyar et al regarding permanent prohibitory injunction
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won