Here's the scoop on a recent court case involving a family property dispute. Justice R. Vijayakumar delivered the decision on September 23, 2025. Let's break it down!
The case started when Mr. M. Pushparaj, the person who brought the case to court, wanted to split up a family property. He wanted a 1/12 share of the property left by his father, Mariapushpam Nadar, who died in 1970. The property was owned by Mr. M. Pushparaj, his mother (the first person being sued), and other siblings (people being sued 2 to 8).
"The mother got 1/3rd, and each sibling was supposed to get 1/12th share."
Things got messy when the mother and the second sibling sold parts of the property to others (people being sued 9 to 15). Mr. M. Pushparaj argued these sales were not valid since he hadn't agreed to them. The court agreed he had a right to his share.
During the trial, a note was filed saying that Mr. M. Pushparaj reached an agreement outside of court for two items on the property list. However, the trial court ignored this note and still gave Mr. M. Pushparaj a 1/12 share of everything.
"A note was filed, but the court didn't consider it."
People being sued 9 and 15 weren't happy and appealed. They argued that the note meant the court shouldn't have given Mr. M. Pushparaj a share of those two items. However, the higher court said the note wasn't officially binding since Mr. M. Pushparaj didn't provide a sworn statement.
Justice Vijayakumar concluded that the note was valid and should have been considered. The court decided:
"The first and second item of the suit schedule properties shall be allotted to the share of defendants 1 and 2."
This case shows how important it is to follow legal steps closely. Even a small note can change everything!
