Case Summary
The plaintiffs, Pathumma and others, filed a suit for partition of property against the defendants, Beeran Kutti and others. The case arose from a dispute over joint ownership and possession of certain properties after their respective parents' death.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Preliminary decree for partition
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court ruled that the plaint A2 schedule property is partible among the plaintiffs and certain defendants, while the plaint B schedule property is also partible. However, the plaint C schedule property cannot be partitioned as it is not part of the estate.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The joint ownership and lack of valid claims against partition were proved.
The joint ownership and lack of valid claims against partition were proved.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The joint ownership and lack of valid claims against partition were proved.
The joint ownership and lack of valid claims against partition were proved.
Supporting Evidence
The materials on record, including the absence of a plea of Wakf, the admissions of DW1, and the actual utilisation of the property, collectively show that the plaint A schedule property need not be kept undivided for the purpose of reciting the Quran, and the property remains partible among the legal heirs.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, preliminary decree is passed as follows: i. 1. Plaint A schedule property shall be divided into 40 equal shares and to allot 2/40 shares each to plaintiffs and 4/40 shares each to the defendants No.1 to 3 and 7 and 8/40 shares each to defendants No.5 and 6.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Pathumma
- Party Age
- 76
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Amina
- Party Age
- 66
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Aassya
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sainaba
- Party Age
- 58
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Beeran Kutti
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Abdu Rahiman
- Party Age
- 61
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Muhammed
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Secretary Munoor Juma Ath Palli Paripalana Committe
- Relation
- Rep. by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Veeran Kutti. P
- Party Age
- 73
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ahammed. P
- Party Age
- 69
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Amina
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Photocopy of Deed No. 1400/1953 of SRO, Chathamangalam, Certified copy of Deed No. 2052/1985 of SRO Mukkam, Certified copy of Deed No. 2167/1955 of SRO, Chathamangalam, Certified copy of Deed No. 967/1955 of SRO, Chathamangalam.
Defendants Documents
Certified copy of Deed No. 45/2005 of SRO, Chathamangalam, Certified copy of Deed No. 3824/2010 of SRO, Chathamangalam, Certified copy of Deed No. 3823/2010 of SRO, Chathamangalam, Certified copy of Deed No. 1879/2017 of SRO, Chathamangalam, Land Tax Receipt, Certified copy of Deed No. 4322/2010 of SRO Mukkam.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Smt. Ruksana. K.
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Noushad Kallada
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The property shall be divided among the parties as per their respective shares.
Evidence:
Plaintiffs are entitled to 4/10 shares in the plaint B schedule properties.
Relief Type:
Prohibitory Injunction
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants are restrained from creating documents to obstruct possession until partition.
Evidence:
The defendants are restrained from creating documents to obstruct the peaceful possession of plaint A and B schedule property.
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaint A schedule property shall be divided into 40 equal shares.
Evidence:
Plaint A schedule property shall be divided into 40 equal shares and to allot 2/40 shares each to plaintiffs.
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Plaint B schedule property shall be divided into 10 equal shares.
Evidence:
Plaint B schedule property shall be divided into 10 equal shares.
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Not Decided
Description:
Decision regarding the final decree petition.
Evidence:
Any party to the suit can file petition for final decree.
Relief Type:
Partition
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Claim for partition of the C schedule property cannot be sustained.
Evidence:
Thus, the claim of the plaintiffs for partition of the C schedule property cannot be sustained.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Photocopy of deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked as evidence for the plaint A schedule property obtained by the father of the plaintiffs and defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked as evidence for the plaint B schedule property obtained by the mother of the plaintiffs and defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked as evidence for item No.1 in plaint C schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Marked as evidence for item No.2 in plaint C schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Marked as evidence for the defendants' claim of ownership to the plaint C schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Marked as evidence for the defendants' rights over plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Marked as evidence for the defendants' claimed transactions regarding the plaint schedule property.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Marked as evidence related to additional rights or transactions.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Marked as evidence establishing defendants' ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Land Tax Receipt
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Marked as evidence establishing defendants' ownership.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Marked as evidence for the claimed Wakf deed.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Marked as evidence regarding the partition deed.
Reference:
Ext.B8
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Marked as evidence related to ownership of property.
Reference:
Ext.B9
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Marked as evidence related to ownership claims.
Reference:
Ext.B10
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Marked as evidence associated with the property.
Reference:
Ext.B11
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Kozhikode
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court 2 Kozhikode
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Pathumma et al vs Beeran Kutti et al regarding partition of property
Case Code Year
Case between Pathumma et al vs Beeran Kutti et al regarding partition of property