Case Summary
R. Saroja filed a suit for partition of properties originally belonging to her deceased mother and grandmother against Sivathanu @ Murugan and others. The plaintiff claims her share was not properly recognized in prior partition arrangements.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit for partition was dismissed as the court found insufficient grounds to recognize the plaintiff's claim to the properties. The previous partition deed was deemed binding.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiff failed to prove her entitlement and the legitimacy of the prior partition deed was upheld.
The plaintiff failed to prove her entitlement and the legitimacy of the prior partition deed was upheld.
Why Defendant Won:
Not available
Not available
Supporting Evidence
It is also pertinent to note that the date of death of the persons who are alleged to be deceased was not even stated in the plaint.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result; the suit is dismissed. No costs.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- R. Saroja
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- W/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sivathanu @ Murugan
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- S. Subrahmanian @ Rajan
- Party Age
- 57
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- R. Sathyaraj
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- K. Subhalakshmi
- Party Age
- 75
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- R. Vijayalakshmi
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Certified copy of the Sale Deed No. 1814/1085 ME, Certified copy of Sale Deed No. ME. 2309/1115, Certified copy of Partition deed No. 528/1997, Certified copy of the Sale deed No. 1164/2008
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri. V.K. Radhakrishnan Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri. Pradeep Lal. S & Smt.Renjini. M
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Rejected
Description:
The plaintiff requested the court to partition the properties and acknowledge her share.
Evidence:
In light of the discussions on the foregoing issues, this court is of the view that the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief in her favour.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the Sale Deed No. 1814/1085 ME was produced to establish ownership over property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Sale Deed No. ME. 2309/1115 was produced to establish ownership over property.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Partition Deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of Partition deed No. 528/1997 was marked to prove prior partition among family members.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Sale deed
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Certified copy of the Sale Deed No. 1164/2008 was marked to support claims about the subsequent sale of property.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Document
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Copy of document No. 2309/1115 ME was verified and marked as a third-party exhibit.
Reference:
Ext.X1
Document Type:
Document
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Copy of document No. 1814/1085 ME was verified and marked as a third-party exhibit.
Reference:
Ext.X2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Property and Possession Disputes
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2015