D.Anburaja vs Karunagaran — 14/2026
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section OR 7 R 1. Status: Appearance. Next hearing: 07th July 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNCG130000552026
Next Hearing
07th July 2026
Filing Number
53/2026
Filing Date
09-01-2026
Registration No
14/2026
Registration Date
03-02-2026
Court
Sub Court, Maduranthakam
Judge
1-Subordinate Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
D.Anburaja
Adv. Subramanian.S.
Respondent(s)
Karunagaran
Ponnammal
Marimuthu
Selvam
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge
Appearance
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Appearance |
| 24-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 18-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 16-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 13-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: D. Anburaja v. Karunagaran & Others (O.S. No. 14/2026) Petitioner D. Anburaja sought temporary injunction to restrain defendants from constructing on ancestral property, claiming he purchased a 1/3 share through a prior court decree. Defendants countered that the property belonged to six co-owners and that the petitioner's vendor had relinquished her share to them in 1995. The court dismissed the temporary injunction application, finding the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, as he could only claim a co-owner's share—not exclusive title to the middle portion as claimed—and no document proved exclusive possession. Accordingly, injunction cannot be granted against co-owners. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: D. Anburaja v. Karunagaran & Others (O.S. No. 14/2026) Petitioner D. Anburaja sought temporary injunction to restrain defendants from constructing on ancestral property, claiming he purchased a 1/3 share through a prior court decree. Defendants countered that the property belonged to six co-owners and that the petitioner's vendor had relinquished her share to them in 1995. The court dismissed the temporary injunction application, finding the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, as he could only claim a co-owner's share—not exclusive title to the middle portion as claimed—and no document proved exclusive possession. Accordingly, injunction cannot be granted against co-owners. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts