K.K.Raveendran and Others v. K.K.Janardanan and Others
Case brief
What is this about?
This judgment affirms an order refusing to remit the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan in a partition suit for final decree. However, it permits the petitioners to adduce evidence to contradict the report and allows remittal if particulars are lacking after evidence is recorded.
What did the court decide?
Petitioners permitted to adduce evidence to contradict the report and plan. Remittal open if lacking material particulars after evidence.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/23RD ASWINA 1934
CRP.No. 444 of 2011 ( )
OS.132/1994 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:
1. K.K.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.NARAYANI AMMA, AGED 50 YEARS, SUPERVISOR ORDINANCE FACTORY TPP IV 14/1, SUPERB RANGA HILL, KIRKEE PUNE-411 020.
2. K.K.SASEENDRAN, S/O. NARAYANI AMMA, AGED 48 YEARS, INSURANCE OFFICE EMPLOYEE JANAKI NIVAS, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR-2.
3. K.K.JAYENDRAN, S/O. NARAYANI AMMA, AGED 46 YEARS, P.B.NO.270, CODE NO.411 SULTANATE OF OMAN BY HIS P.A.HOLDER LEENA JAYENDRAN, D/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 37 YEARS JANAKI NIVAS, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR-2.
BY ADVS.SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order refusing the remittal of the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner in a suit for partition is sustainable.
Whether a detailed analysis of evidence at an interlocutory stage is permissible in proceedings under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
K.K. Raveendran & Others
- respondent
K.K. Janardanan & Others
Coram
V. Chitambaresh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court