Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.606/2019

Case between M. Lalitha @ Lalitha Rajagopal vs Surya Kumari et al regarding partition and permanent injunction.

Court
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-11-04
Duration
approximately-6 years 4 months
Case Code No.
606
Case Closed
Tue, 11/04/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The case involves a suit filed by M. Lalitha against Surya Kumari and her children for partition of property and a permanent injunction. The plaintiff claims co-ownership of the property inherited from their father, while the defendants contest this claim based on a will that they allege bequeathed the property to them.

Judgment Outcome

Defendant Won
Interim Order
The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for partition and permanent injunction, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove co-ownership rights over the property based on a valid will in favor of the defendants.
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for partition and permanent injunction, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove co-ownership rights over the property based on a valid will in favor of the defendants.
Key Reasoning:
The court found the will in favor of the defendants valid and the plaintiff failed to establish her claim.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The court determined that the execution of the Will in favor of a son, without transferring the property to the plaintiff, does not itself give rise to suspicious circumstances.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result; The suit is dismissed.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
M. Lalitha @ Lalitha Rajagopal
Party Age
55
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Surya Kumari
Party Age
65
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Vijayalekshmi
Party Age
34
Relation
D/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
N. Harisankar
Party Age
32
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Extract of the Admission Register, Death Certificate of Sri. Harihara Iyer, Death Certificate of Smt. Muthulakshmi Ammal, Copy of advocate’s notice, Certified copy of the Deed No. 1347/1124 M.E
Defendants Documents
Original Will Deed No. 129/1984, Certified copy of the Settlement deed No. 3655/2018, Death certificate of Sri. H. Neelakandan, Tax receipt, Property tax receipt

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Smt. S. Laila
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Sri. Renjith.R
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. B. Vasudevan Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Partition
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff prayed for a partition of the plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
The suit is dismissed.
Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Refused
Description:
The plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from alienating the property.
Evidence:
In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to establish the requisite grounds for the grant of an injunction.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Extract of the Admission Register
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document was submitted as evidence to support the plaintiff's claim.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Death Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document established the death of Sri. Harihara Iyer, relevant to the plaintiff's inheritance claim.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Death Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document established the death of Smt. Muthulakshmi Ammal, relevant to the plaintiff's inheritance claim.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Copy of the advocate’s notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document demonstrates the plaintiff's attempt to initiate partition.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Postal Receipts
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document supports the claim of communication regarding the partition notice.
Reference:
Ext.A4 series
Document Type: Certified copy of the Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document was submitted as evidence to support the argument of joint family property.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Original Will Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The document is crucial for establishing the defendants' claim of ownership of the property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type: Certified copy of the Settlement Deed
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The document supports the claim of the 3rd defendant's ownership over the property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type: Death Certificate
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The document established the death of Sri. H. Neelakandan, relevant to inheritance.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The document evidences the payment of property tax by the defendants, substantiating their ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type: Property Tax Receipt
Submitted By: Defendant
Relevance:
The document further evidences the payment of property tax, supporting the defendants' claim.
Reference:
Ext.B5

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Partition of property
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2019

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Fri, 02/08/2019 - 12:00
Case Closed
Tue, 11/04/2025 - 12:00
From
Sat, 11/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Sun, 11/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Private Individual

Similar Cases

Case between Santhamma.S vs K. Sasidharan Nair regarding partition of property
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Rajesh Balakrishnan vs Sunitha Sundar et al regarding partition and permanent prohibitory injunction.
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Syed Mohammed Sadik vs Suresh Babu. R.C regarding permanent prohibitory injunction and consequential reliefs.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Thulaseedharan.B. vs Bindu et al regarding temporary prohibitory injunction
Court of Additional Munsiff (RCC)
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Aravindan Nair et al vs Ramachandran Nair et al regarding partition and permanent prohibitory injunction.
THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won