Savi v. Poulose
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court of Kerala modified the preliminary decree of partition in O.S. No. 404 of 2010 after accepting affidavits and statements where respondents relinquished their shares. The decree was altered to allocate shares to the appropriate defendants and their co-sharers.
What did the court decide?
The preliminary decree is modified; plaint property divided into five equal shares with increased entitlement for defendants 2 to 5 and adjusted shares for plaintiff and other respondents based on rel
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 21ST POUSHA, 1945
RSA NO. 623 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR IN AS NO. 16/2018 DATED 15.11.2019 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALUVA IN O.S. NO.404/2010 DATED 09.03.2018.
APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 2 TO 5:
| 1 | SAVI |
|---|---|
| AGED 48 YEARS S/O LATE OUSEPH, KANAVALA HOUSE, KARUKITTI VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK--683576. |
|
| 2 | JOY AGED 45 YEARS S/O LATE OUSEPH, KANAVALA HOUSE, KARUKITTI VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK--683576. |
| 3 | JOBY AGED 40 YEARS |
| S/O LATE OUSEPH, KANAVALA HOUSE, KARUKITTI VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK-683576. |
|
| 4 | REENA AGED 42 YEARS D/O LATE OUSEPH, KANAVALA HOUSE, KARUKITTI VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK--683576. |
| BY ADVS. | |
| A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.M.N.MANMADAN SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED SMT.P.SEENA |
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the preliminary decree in the partition suit requires modification based on affidavits and statements relinquishing shares by certain parties.
Whether the shares due to respondents 7 to 10 (defendants 11 and 6 to 9) should be devolved to their respective relatives.
What the correct distribution of shares is in the modified decree.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Savi
- appellant
Joy
- appellant
Joby
- appellant
Reena
- respondent
Poulse
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court