Case Summary
The case involves a partition suit concerning property previously owned by Sri. Late Francis De Morris. The petitioners seek to be added as additional defendants to assert their claims related to the property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The application for impleading additional defendants was dismissed by the court, stating that the petitioners were not necessary parties for a decision in the existing partition suit.
Key Reasoning:
The court found that the petitioners did not provide adequate evidence to show their interest in the property, which was the subject matter of the original suit.
The court found that the petitioners did not provide adequate evidence to show their interest in the property, which was the subject matter of the original suit.
Why Defendant Won:
The court found that the petitioners did not provide adequate evidence to show their interest in the property, which was the subject matter of the original suit.
The court found that the petitioners did not provide adequate evidence to show their interest in the property, which was the subject matter of the original suit.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner herein has not adduced any evidence to prima facie substantiate their contention with respect to their interest if any over the plaint schedule property.
Judgment Evidence:
Hence I.A.4/2024 stands dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Matilda De Morris
- Party Age
- 88
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Dennis Jhon De Morris
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- George De Morris
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Tominal De Morris
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Juliana @ Juliet De Morris
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Leans Antony D’Cruz
- Party Age
- 47
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Pansy Xavier
- Party Age
- 73
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt.Deepak.J.M
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt.Dhanya.U.D
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Vishnu Hari.R
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Basant.L.J
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.David Varghese Thomas
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Premjith.S
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt.Sreelakshmi.P
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.Akshay.P.Chand
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Smt.Abhirami.G.S
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt.Sujatha.P.Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt.J.Kamalamma
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The petitioners sought to be impleaded as additional defendants in the suit.
Evidence:
Hence I.A.4/2024 stands dismissed.
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 Matilda De Morris et al vs Leans Antony D’Cruz et al regarding impleadment as additional defendants in a partition suit
Case Code Year
Case between Matilda De Morris et al vs Leans Antony D’Cruz et al regarding impleadment as additional defendants in a partition suit