Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J
CHAKRAWARTHIGE PREETHI RUPA – Appellant
Versus
MALU – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. partition suit filed (Para 1) |
| 2. trial court decreed (Para 2) |
| 3. defendants' contention (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. mother's rights affirmed (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT
1. The appellants are the defendants in a suit for partition. They are the widow and two daughters of the deceased Kottayil Devadasan. The plaintiff in the suit is the mother of the said Devadasan for partitioning the plaint schedule properties left behind him.
2. The Trial Court decreed the suit passing a Preliminary Decree declaring that the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to get ¼ share each in Plaint B Schedule Item No.1 to 4 properties with a reservation regarding the house and the appurtenant land in Plaint B Schedule Item No.1 property in favour of the first defendant subject to payment of owelty to be fixed in final decree proceedings.
3. Though the defendants filed an Appeal before the First Appellate Court, the same was dismissed, confirming the Preliminary Decree passed by the Trial Court.
4. The substantial contention ad
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
