Panneerselvam 9 others vs Ramadoss 5 others Advocate - S.Subramanian D1 and D3 to D6 , D2 Exparte — 200249/2012
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(a),27(c). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 24th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNCG140000862012
Filing Number
200249/2012
Filing Date
13-09-2012
Registration No
200249/2012
Registration Date
13-09-2012
Court
District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam
Judge
2-District Munsif
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Panneerselvam 9 others
Adv. Pugazendhi
Kumar
Adv. M.Palayathan
Raghu (Died)
Adv. M.Palayathan
Vimala
Adv. M.Palayathan
Mageswari
Adv. M.Palayathan
Baskar
Adv. S.Subramanian
Elangovan
Adv. S.Subramanian
Renuga
Adv. S.Subramanian
Girija
Adv. S.Subramanian
Pushpa
Adv. S.Subramanian
Respondent(s)
Ramadoss 5 others Advocate - S.Subramanian D1 and D3 to D6 , D2 Exparte
Krishnan
Adv. S.Subramanian
Sathiya
Adv. S.Subramanian
Kuppan
Adv. S.Subramanian
Panchappan
Adv. S.Subramanian
Saroja
Adv. S.Subramanian
Parameswari
Adv. Subramanian.S.
Anusuya
Adv. Subramanian.S.
Amudhavalli
Adv. Subramanian.S.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 11-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 03-03-2026 | Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: O.S.No.249/2012 Court Decision: The suit was dismissed in its entirety. The District Munsif found that plaintiffs failed to establish title to the disputed property through credible documentary evidence and that the suit was defective due to non-joinder of necessary parties. Key Reasoning: The court determined that plaintiffs' reliance on old revenue records (patta and adangal) was insufficient to prove ownership, as revenue documents alone do not confer title without supporting title deeds. Critical inconsistencies in plaintiffs' documents, combined with evidence showing the property stood in the name of Logaiya Naidu after 1981, undermined their claim. Additionally, the court found necessary parties—including subsequent purchasers and legal heirs—were not joined, preventing effective adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S.No.249/2012 Court Decision: The suit was dismissed in its entirety. The District Munsif found that plaintiffs failed to establish title to the disputed property through credible documentary evidence and that the suit was defective due to non-joinder of necessary parties. Key Reasoning: The court determined that plaintiffs' reliance on old revenue records (patta and adangal) was insufficient to prove ownership, as revenue documents alone do not confer title without supporting title deeds. Critical inconsistencies in plaintiffs' documents, combined with evidence showing the property stood in the name of Logaiya Naidu after 1981, undermined their claim. Additionally, the court found necessary parties—including subsequent purchasers and legal heirs—were not joined, preventing effective adjudication. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts