Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S., J
JOY – Appellant
Versus
RAJU – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. partition suit facts and non-suit rationale. (Para 2) |
| 2. substantial questions of law related to procedural fairness. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments from both parties regarding partition identification. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court observations on trial irregularities. (Para 7) |
| 5. judgment allowing the appeal and directives for trial. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree in OS No. 5 of
2007 of the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor as confirmed by the Sub Court, Perumbavoor in AS No. 243 of 2009.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
2.1. The appellant/plaintiff in a suit for partition has been non-
suited concurrently by the Courts below on the sole ground that the appellant has not taken effective steps to identify the plaint schedule property. The facts are not seriously disputed. By Ext. A3 partition deed executed among the parties, a total of 1.50 Acres of property was partitioned. The extent of property partitioned in the said deed is 1.44 acres. Thus, remaining 6 cents of property is available for partition. The plaintiff thus sought the decree for partition of the aforesaid extent. The Commissioner appointed by the Tria
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
