Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MARY JOSEPH, J
SUNDARAN – Appellant
Versus
SMT.SATHYABHAMA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges to preliminary decree. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contestation on assignment of properties and admissibility of new evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. limitations and maintainability of partition suit. (Para 7 , 12) |
| 4. assessment of limitations and non-maintainability arguments. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. court’s reasoning on property rights and assignment. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. conclusive reasoning by appellate court leading to the result. (Para 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. accrual of right depends on co-sharer actions. (Para 18 , 22) |
| 8. importance of evidence regarding property assignments. (Para 34 , 36) |
| 9. appeal decision and orders for retrial. (Para 42) |
JUDGMENT
The judgment and decree dated 30.03.2009 in O.S. No.316 of 2006 of Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Palakkad (for short, 'the trial court') is under challenge in the appeal on hand. The appellant is the defendant in the suit and respondents are plaintiffs therein. The suit was for partition.
2. The suit was tried by the trial court and a preliminary decree for partition was passed on the following terms :
“a) The plaint schedule properties, excluding the 40 cents of land shown in the schedule to the written statement, shall be d
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
