Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.504/2015

Case between Ramesan vs Sujatha et al regarding partition of ancestral property.

Court
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Judge
Sri. Mithun Gopi.G.S
Order Date
2025-01-31
Duration
approximately-9 years 16 days
Case Code No.
504
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff Ramesan seeks a partition of the ancestral property claimed jointly with the defendants, who are siblings. The case arises from disputes over the joint possession and ownership of property following the death of their mother.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court granted a preliminary decree for partition of the property, awarding shares to the plaintiff and defendants. The court ordered to demarcate and assign possession of their respective shares.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
A preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property by metes and bounds is granted.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court granted a preliminary decree for partition of the property, awarding shares to the plaintiff and defendants. The court ordered to demarcate and assign possession of their respective shares.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The plaintiff has proven that there is a divisible interest that has not been partitioned in the plaint schedule property.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The plaintiff has proven that there is a divisible interest that has not been partitioned in the plaint schedule property.
Supporting Evidence
The plaintiff has proven that there is a divisible interest that has not been partitioned in the plaint schedule property.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result; the suit is decreed as follows: (a) A preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property by metes and bounds is granted. (b) The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to get 1/6 shares each over plaint schedule property.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Ramesan
Party Age
61
Relation
S/o.
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sujatha
Party Age
65
Relation
D/o.
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Gireeshan
Party Age
63
Relation
S/o.
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Satheeshan
Party Age
63
Relation
S/o.
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Ramani
Party Age
58
Relation
D/o.
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Nirmala
Party Age
55
Relation
W/o.
Plaintiffs Documents
Original Partition deed No. 4096/2007, Tax receipt
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Smt. Suma Devi O (Legal Aid)
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. R.S. Anoop Chandran
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. M.S. Manish
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sri. Kadakampally K. Jayakumaran Nair
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Permanent Injunction
Outcome: Granted
Description:
A preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property by metes and bounds is granted.
Evidence:
the suit is decreed as follows: (a) A preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property by metes and bounds is granted.
Relief Type: Possession
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to get 1/6 shares each over plaint schedule property.
Evidence:
the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to get 1/6 shares each over plaint schedule property.
Relief Type: Possession
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff, the 4th defendant and defendants 5 to 7 are entitled to be put in separate possession of their share demarcated in the final decree.
Evidence:
the plaintiff, the 4th defendant and defendants 5 to 7 are entitled to be put in separate possession of their share demarcated in the final decree.
Relief Type: Possession
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendants 1, 2 and 3 are entitled to be put in separate possession of their shares upon payment of requisite court fee.
Evidence:
The defendants 1, 2 and 3 are entitled to be put in separate possession of their shares upon payment of requisite court fee.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Partition Deed
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as evidence of the partition arrangements made concerning the family property.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Tax receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes that the plaintiff and defendants are co-owners and jointly pay land tax for the property.
Reference:
Ext.A2

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

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Sat, 01/31/2015 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Wed, 01/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 01/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
85%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Thulaseedharan.B. vs Bindu et al regarding temporary prohibitory injunction
Court of Additional Munsiff (RCC)
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between R. Saroja vs Sivathanu @ Murugan et al regarding partition of plaint schedule properties.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Defendant Won
Case between Sarathchandran Nair.J vs Government of India et al regarding boundary measurement and injunction
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Nazarudeen. A vs Tom.D et al regarding suit for declaration, recovery of possession, and injunction
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff 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