Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Easwaran S., J
KUNHI THUNDIYIL MADHAVAN – Appellant
Versus
KALATHIL ROHINI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. partition suit background and property ownership. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. questions of law framed for consideration. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding joint family property. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's analysis of property exclusion in partition. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. legal implications of purchase certificates. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. evidence and its impact on case outcome. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. final decision and order of the court. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs in a suit for partition have come up with these appeals, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court, Kannur in A.S.Nos.448 of 2012 and 1 of 2013.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:-
The property described as item No.2 in the plaint was held by one Matha as per Marupattam document No.2554/1943. The property described as item No.1 was in the possession of Kunhi Thundiyil Ambutty as per document No.139/1931. The plaintiffs and the defendants are the legal heirs of Matha and Ambutty and after the death of Matha and Ambutty, the right in the plaint schedule property was devolved upon the plaintiffs and defendants. As per a registered Nishchaya Rekha No.1323/1941 dated
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
