Deivasigamani vs Sivagami — 234/2022
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 25(d), 27(c). Disposed: Uncontested--Returned on 21st April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNCB170002762022
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
332/2022
Filing Date
02-12-2022
Registration No
234/2022
Registration Date
23-12-2022
Court
District Munsif Court, Sulur
Judge
30-DISTRICT MUNSIF, SULUR
Decision Date
21st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Returned
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Deivasigamani
Adv. Kuppuraj.A
Respondent(s)
Sivagami
Leelavathi
Maheswari
Adv. M.Ganeshkumar
Kamalraj
Adv. M.Ganeshkumar
Gopalakrishnan
Adv. M.Ganeshkumar
Maragatham
Marathal
Adv. E.Gopalakrishnan
Rangasamy
Adv. E.Gopalakrishnan
Easwaramoorthy
Adv. E.Gopalakrishnan
Chenniappan
Adv. E.Gopalakrishnan
saraswathi
Adv. R.N.Anandharaman
Gokilamani
Adv. R.N.Anandharaman
Shanmugasundaram
Adv. R.N.Anantharakan
Marathal
Adv. R.Prabakaran
Nataraj
Adv. R.Prabakaran
suganthi
Adv. R.Prabakaran
Suresh
Adv. R.Prabakaran
Sundrambal
Adv. K.Deepak
Ambigavathi
Adv. K.Deepak
Yuvaraj
Adv. K.Deepak
Bagyalakshmi
Adv. K.Deepak
Thulasiammal
Adv. R.N.Anandharaman
Rajkumar
Adv. R.N.Anandharaman
D.Gopalsamy
R.Saraswathi
Adv. K.Praburam
J.Shanthamani
Adv. K.Praburam
S.Vijayalakshmi
Adv. K.Praburam
R.Azhammal
V.Srinivasan
Hearing History
Judge: 30-DISTRICT MUNSIF, SULUR
Disposed
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-04-2026 | Amendment | |
| 08-04-2026 | Amendment | |
| 30-03-2026 | Amendment | |
| 26-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Final Orders / Judgements
The District Munsif of Sulur found that the suit value exceeded the court's pecuniary jurisdiction and returned the plaint, directing the plaintiff to file before the appropriate jurisdictional court. Although the judgment details multiple sale deeds and documents the plaintiff sought to declare null and void, the court did not adjudicate the merits due to the jurisdictional limitation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The District Munsif of Sulur found that the suit value exceeded the court's pecuniary jurisdiction and returned the plaint, directing the plaintiff to file before the appropriate jurisdictional court. Although the judgment details multiple sale deeds and documents the plaintiff sought to declare null and void, the court did not adjudicate the merits due to the jurisdictional limitation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts