Case Summary
The case involves a partition suit filed by V.N.Jayesh against his siblings regarding the property inherited from their father Velukutty. The plaintiff seeks to partition the property after claiming financial assistance provided to the father during his lifetime.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court found that the property in question belonged exclusively to the first defendant based on evidence presented. The suit for partition has been dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendants.
Key Reasoning:
The court determined that the property is not partible based on the evidence of executed documents.
The court determined that the property is not partible based on the evidence of executed documents.
Why Defendant Won:
The court determined that the property is not partible based on the evidence of executed documents.
The court determined that the property is not partible based on the evidence of executed documents.
Supporting Evidence
The execution of the exhibit B3 document in favour of the first defendant is established before the court.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs to defendant No 1 and 2 who are the contesting defendants.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- V.N.Jayesh
- Party Age
- 42
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Venugopalan
- Party Age
- 55
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Balamani Bhaskaran.V
- Party Age
- 63
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Shailaja Sadanandan.C.K
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Geetha Bhaskaran
- Party Age
- 54
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Suvarna Asokan.L.P
- Party Age
- 45
- Relation
- D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Agreement executed between Velukutty and Jayesh, Copy of Lawyer notice.
Defendants Documents
Copy of Lawyer notice, Reply Notice, Copy of Deed No.1222/2014 of SRO, Mavoor.
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sri.P.K.Sreekumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.A.Gireesh Kumar
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sri.K.Raghunandanan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Possession
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
The plaintiff requested for partition of the plaint B schedule property to receive his share.
Evidence:
The offshoot of the foregoing discussion is that the plaint B schedule property is the exclusive property of the defendant No 1.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The document executes a financial agreement between Velukutty and the plaintiff regarding the money Velukutty owed to him.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
A notice issued by the plaintiff to the first defendant regarding the partition request.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
A notice sent by Velukutty addressing the plaintiff's false claims regarding the debt.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
A reply notice related to the claims made by the plaintiff.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Deed
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
A settlement deed executed by Velukutty in favor of the first defendant, crucial for establishing property rights.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Lawyer Notice
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Another legal notice sent regarding the affairs pertaining to the property in dispute.
Reference:
Ext.B4
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 V.N.Jayesh vs Venugopalan et al regarding partition of property
Case Code Year
Case between V.N.Jayesh vs Venugopalan et al regarding partition of property