Sharmila vs S.Govindarajulu Advocate - Mrs.Arunamunusamy — 13/2017
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 43. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 21st April 2026.
CMA - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
CNR: TNCG130005602017
Filing Number
13/2017
Filing Date
22-12-2017
Registration No
13/2017
Registration Date
22-12-2017
Court
Sub Court, Maduranthakam
Judge
1-Subordinate Judge
Decision Date
21st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sharmila
Adv. S.Subramanian, S.Suresh, A.Abdul Hayat
Respondent(s)
S.Govindarajulu Advocate - Mrs.Arunamunusamy
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge
Disposed
Orders
Orders
Orders
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-03-2026 | Orders |
| 16-03-2026 | Orders |
| 23-02-2026 | Orders |
| 16-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Sharmila v. S. Govindarajulu (CMA 13/2017) The Subordinate Judge dismissed Sharmila's appeal against the trial court's rejection of her temporary injunction application. The court found that Sharmila failed to prove actual possession and enjoyment of the disputed agricultural property, as evidenced by the absence of kist receipts (tax payments) or land records in her name since 2000, despite claiming ownership through a 2012 settlement deed. The court upheld the trial court's conclusion that Sharmila lacked a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience did not favor her. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Sharmila v. S. Govindarajulu (CMA 13/2017) The Subordinate Judge dismissed Sharmila's appeal against the trial court's rejection of her temporary injunction application. The court found that Sharmila failed to prove actual possession and enjoyment of the disputed agricultural property, as evidenced by the absence of kist receipts (tax payments) or land records in her name since 2000, despite claiming ownership through a 2012 settlement deed. The court upheld the trial court's conclusion that Sharmila lacked a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience did not favor her. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts