T.Rajan Iyyer rep by M.K.Ramesh vs Elumalai Advocate - S.Premkumar — 38/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 17Rule1,27(c). Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 23rd March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNCG140000592021
Filing Number
59/2021
Filing Date
15-04-2021
Registration No
38/2021
Registration Date
15-04-2021
Court
District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam
Judge
2-District Munsif
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed without cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
T.Rajan Iyyer rep by M.K.Ramesh
Adv. S.Subramanian
Respondent(s)
Elumalai Advocate - S.Premkumar
siva
Adv. S.Premkumar
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 02-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 20-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: O.S.No.38/2021 Court Decision: The District Munsif at Madurantakam granted T. Rajan Iyyer's suit and issued a permanent injunction restraining defendants Elumalai and Siva from interfering with the plaintiff's access to his property through the B schedule land (20 cents of poramboke property), which is the only pathway from public road to the plaintiff's A schedule property. Key Reasoning: The court found that the defendants' own admissions during cross-examination—that the plaintiff was using the B schedule property as an access pathway and they had no objection to granting the injunction—constituted cogent evidence. Since admissions are the best evidence against the party making them, the court held that the suit B schedule property is the only access to reach the A schedule property, making the plaintiff entitled to the relief sought. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S.No.38/2021 Court Decision: The District Munsif at Madurantakam granted T. Rajan Iyyer's suit and issued a permanent injunction restraining defendants Elumalai and Siva from interfering with the plaintiff's access to his property through the B schedule land (20 cents of poramboke property), which is the only pathway from public road to the plaintiff's A schedule property. Key Reasoning: The court found that the defendants' own admissions during cross-examination—that the plaintiff was using the B schedule property as an access pathway and they had no objection to granting the injunction—constituted cogent evidence. Since admissions are the best evidence against the party making them, the court held that the suit B schedule property is the only access to reach the A schedule property, making the plaintiff entitled to the relief sought. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts