Legal Question in Civil Rights Law in India

Dear Sir, We hv filed partion suit case, our lawers and Depondants not interest to close this case. moreover most of the Depondants are aged after death lot of formaliest and expenses for us (plantiff)

I hv attached personal pleading for your checking.Sir please do the needful and advice me.

IN THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF PALAKKAD

O.S.No. �. of 2012

I.A. No. �� of 2012

Ambujam and 2 others : Plaintiff

Vs

Leela and others : Defendants

PERSONEL CONFIDENTIAL PLEADING

We, P1��., aged 72 years, D/o. late���, residing at����.. and P2 ��� , aged .. years, S/o. ��.. residing at ����..

To Hon�able Sub-ordinate Judge at Palakkad.

Respected Sir,

We are filing partition case as per case no. OS.No�./2012 IA NO. ��/2012. We are P1 ��, and P2 ��� Personally and confidential plead this to honorable Court.

This case, Now myself P1 and other 14 Defendants are aged above 65 years and 3 Defendants died (D1, D14 and D15 )and filed impeding petitions. Due to Aged and illness factor I am afraid myself and most of Defendants are close to death. Those reasons I am verymuch afraid about this case for procedure wise and expense wise. Now 5 Share holders have set-aside with us out of 16 shares (D16, D18, D25,D26, & D43 to D46)

The, D19- Radha menon D20- Ramani, D21- Savithiry D22 �Regunathan, they were Hide other Defendants and Plaintiffs of 10 share holders name in ( P1, P2, P3, D1 TO D18, D25 to D26, and D40 to D46) and s fraudulently created partition deed no.1499/2006 and sold the Schedule �A� property of Document no.861/1934 to D27 to D39. And share the benefits to her own sisters and Brothers D19 to D24. Radha menon, Ramani, Savithiri, Regunathan, Sukumaran, and Rajesh menon are occupied house and Land of Schedule D Property. Even they were not yet file counter pet ion. Purposefully they were extent case they aim, may be aged Dependants voluntarily leave case due to practical problems.

This Hon�able Court was served summons 7 times to said D19 Radha Menon. But she was intentionally not receiving the summons. She purpose fully extent the summons formality, without completing the summons serving formality the case not able to come for trial. It will take too much delay. Moreover D20 to D22 Ramani, Savithiri, and Regunathan were recd the summons, and appear before this Hon�able court. They are own sisters and brother of D19 Radha menon, and very much good relation with own sister D19. They have already communicated over phone and written correspondence with D19.

Please note Share holder status as follows:-

P1, P2 & P3 - 3 Shares

D1 to D13 and 40-42 - 1 Shares (together) all are ex-party except D5 and not served summons to legal hirers (D40-42) of died D1

D45 and D46 � Set-aside � 1 Shares (together) Legal heirs of D14 died on Oct 2013

D43 and D44 � Set-aside � 1 Shares (together) Legal heirs of D15 died on sep2013

D16, D18 - Set-aside � 2 Shares

D17 � ex-party - 1 shares

D19 to D24 � 6 Shares (They did Guilty for Sold the Schedule A property hiding other 10 share holders) D20-21 AND D22 APPEAR BUT NOT EVEN FILE THE COUNTER. THEY HAVE PURPOUSEFULLY delay this case.

D25 and D26 � Set-aside � 1 Shares (together)

D 27 to D39 - Purchasers of Schedule �A� property.

Therefore in this situation I can respectfully pray this hon�able court may be allow to Newspaper publication for all not recd defendants, like D19, D23, D5 and already exparty dependant of (Died) D1�s Legal heirs D40, D41, AND D42. .Please closes the summons formality and please allows to sort out this case through meditation.

All the facts stated above are true and correct dated this is the July, 2014

P1

P2

1 Answer from Attorneys

Related Questions & Answers

More Civil Rights Law questions and answers in India

Looking for something else?