Order 1 - OS/100374/2016 - KLAL250005492016 - Order No: 1 | eCourts India

Order 1 - OS/100374/2016 - KLAL250005492016 - Order No: 1

Case and Order Information

Case Number: OS/100374/2016

Parties: Order 1 - OS/100374/2016 - KLAL250005492016

Order Number: 1

Order Date: Not Available

Order Description: Judgement

Status: Report on mediation

Your authenticated true copy is ready for download

Order Content

IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KAYAMKULAM

Present: Sri. BijukumaR. C. R. , B. Com. , LL. B. , Munsiff Monday the 26th November 2018/ 5th Agrahayanam 1940

OS. 374/2016

(Filed on 23/08/2016)

Plaintiff: Leela, aged 68 years, W/o Shadevan, Kulathoor Koikkal veedu, Kappil meakkum Muri, Krishnapuram Village from Chittakkattu veedu, Najakkanal Muri, Krishnapuram Village. (By Adv. Sri. D. Sudhakaran. )

  • Defendants: 1. Mohanan, aged 62 years, S/o Kuttappan, Chittakkattu veedu, Najakkanal muri, Krishnapuram Village.
    1. Babu, aged 60 years, S/o Kuttappan, Chirrakkattu veedu @ SBS, Najakkanal Muri, Krishnapuram Village.
    1. Gangan, aged 70 years, S/o Kuttappan, Gokulam Veedu, Thottappally muri, Purakkad Village from Chittakkattu veedu, Najakkkanal Muri, Krishnapuram Village.
    1. Sasi, aged 66 years, S/o Kuttappan, Kadampuzha veedu, Kavanadu. P. O, Meenathucheriyil, Sakthikulangara Village, from Chittakkattu, Najakkanal muri, Krishnapuram Village. (D1 By Adv. Sri. K. K. Thomas D2 by Adv. Sri. M. S. Devalal, D3 aND 4 Exparte. ) This Suit having been finally heard on 22/11/2018 the court on 26/11/2018 delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

The Suit is for partition aND consequential injunction.

  1. The averments in the plaint in short are as follows: - The Plaintiff aND the Defendants are siblings. The plaint schedule property jointly belongs to the Plaintiff aND Defendant Nos. 1 aND 2 as per item No. 3 in partition deed No. 2480 dated 26. 06. 1981 of the Kayamkulam Sub Registrar Office subject to the life interest of their parents, Sri. Kuttappan aND Smt. . Rajamma, who are presently not alive. In the said partition deed, there was a provision that all the parties to the deed have right to reside in the residential house in the said property, which was item No. 3 in the said partition deed, during the life time of party Nos. 1 aND 6 therein aND after their life time, party Nos. 2 aND 3 have absolute right in one room on the eastern side of the southern extremity of the said residential house. Party Nos. 2 aND 3 in the said partition deed are Defendant Nos. 3 aND 4 herein. Thus, Defendant Nos. 3 aND 4 have right to reside in the said room on the southeastern corner of the said residential house aND apart from that, they have no right or freedom over the plaint schedule property or the residential house therein. Even then, they are impleaded in the party array. The Plaintiff aND Defendant Nos. 1 aND 2 alone have right over the plaint schedule property, which is 9. 60 Ares comprised in re-survey No. 846/21 as per thandaper No. 15825 of the Krishnapuram Village. Since there are certain practical difficulties in enjoying the property by possessing it jointly, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to partition the plaint schedule property aND the residential house therein by metes aND bounds. She made such a demaND lastly on 15. 08. 2016. However, the Defendants not turned up. Since the Plaintiffs had expressed such an opinion, the Defendants are on inimical terms with him. With an intention to make illegal gain, the Defendants are trying to trespass into the plaint schedule property aND to cut down trees therein aND to commit mischief in the said property. On 18. 08. 2016, the Plaintiff had got reliable information regarding the said attempt. They have no manner of right or authority to do so. The Plaintiff is not able to resist the said attempt except with the intervention of the court. It is in the said circumstances, the Suit is instituted for partitioning the plaint schedule property aND the residential house therein by metes aND bounds aND to allocate 1/3rd share of the Plaintiff over the same to his separate possession aND for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendants aND their men from cutting down aND removing trees in the plaint schedule property aND from committing mischief therein. The Suit is liable to be decreed with costs.
  2. Defendant Nos. 3 aND 4 were set ex parte. Defendant Nos. 1 aND 2 had filed separate written statement. The 1st Defendant pleaded an oral partition. However, they also set ex parte when the Suit listed for trial. Therefore, the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff alone was considered.
  3. The Plaintiff had filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Exts. A1 to A5 aND C1 were marked. Heard the counsel for the Plaintiff.
  4. In the affidavit in lieu of chief examination, the Plaintiff had reiterated the averments in the plaint. Ext. A1 proves that the plaint schedule property jointly belongs to the Plaintiff aND Defendant Nos. 1 aND 2. The fact that parents of the parties are no more is not disputed. From the evidence adduced in the case, it can be seen that the plaint schedule property is partible subject to the right of Defendant Nos. 3 aND 4 to reside in the residential house in the plaint schedule property as provided in Ext. A1. In Ext. A1, it is categorically provided that Defendant Nos. 3 aND 4 have right to use one room on the eastern side at the southern extremity of the said residential house with full freedom. The plaint schedule property can be partitioned subject to the said right. Considering the facts aND circumstances of the case, the parties are liable to bear their respective costs. In the result, a preliminary decree is passed: - (a) partitioning the plaint schedule property aND the residential house therein into three equal shares by metes aND bounds aND allocating 1/3rd share each over the said property aND the residential house therein to the separate possession of the Plaintiff aND Defendant

Nos. 1 aND 2 subject to the right of Defendant Nos. 3 aND 4 to use the room on the eastern side at southern extremity of the said residential house in the plaint schedule property with full freedom during their life time,

  • (b) restraining the Defendants aND their men from cutting down aND removing trees in the plaint schedule property aND from committing mischief therein till passing a final decree; aND
  • (c) directing the parties to bear their respective costs. Suit adjourned sine die. Parties are at liberty to apply for a final decree. (Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed aND typed by her, corrected aND pronounced by me in open court on 26th day of November, 2018. )

BIJUKUMAR. C. R MUNSIFF

Appendix

Exhibits for the Plaintiff: - | A1 | 26. 6. 1981 | - | Partition deed entered into by Rema aND others. | |----|-----------|---|-------------------------------------------------| | A2 | - | - | Ration card. | | A3 | - | - | Copy of Ration card. | | A4 | 1. 8. 18 | - | Tax receipt. | | A5 | 10. 8. 16 | - | Tax receipt. | | | | | | Court Exhibits: - C1 31. 8. 16 - Report aND mahazar prepared by commissioner Adv. Smt. . Sheeja. K. M.

PS: Copyright: eCourtsIndia.com. AI-enhanced; accuracy may vary.

References: Case Number - OS/100374/2016 | Case Type - OS | CNR Number - KLAL250005492016 | Complex Name - Court Complex, Kayamkulam | Court Name - 1-smt. Aneesa a-munsiff | Filing Date - 23-08-2016 | Judge Name - 1-Munsiff | List Date - 2025-05-28 | Order Date - 2018-11-26 | Order Number - 1 | Petitioner Advocates - Sudhakaran. D | Petitioner Parties - Leela Advocate - Sudhakaran. D | Respondent Parties - Mohanan2) Babu 3) Gagan 4) Sasi 5) Sheela 6) Krishna Babu 7) Vishnu Babu | Status - Report On Mediation

Document information last updated: 2025-05-31 20:22:30