Kali vs Subramani Advocate - Rajkamal — 101/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7Rule1,27(c). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 02nd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNCG140001062020
Filing Number
125/2020
Filing Date
02-09-2020
Registration No
101/2020
Registration Date
23-09-2020
Court
District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam
Judge
2-District Munsif
Decision Date
02nd June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kali
Adv. Rajangandhi
Respondent(s)
Subramani Advocate - Rajkamal
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-06-2026 | Disposed |
| 22-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 09-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 02-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 17-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Kali v. Subramani (O.S. 101/2020) Court Decision: The District Munsif at Madurantakam dismissed the suit filed by Kali against Subramani on June 2, 2026. The plaintiff failed to prove the alleged encroachment of 2.5 feet by the defendant into the common pathway (Schedule B property) and thus was denied mandatory and permanent injunction relief. Key Reasoning: The court relied primarily on a second advocate commissioner's report (conducted with assistance from the Deputy Inspector of Surveyor using proper survey methodology and reference stones), which found no encroachment by the defendant. The first advocate commissioner's report, which had found a 1.66 sq.mt. encroachment, was rejected as unreliable due to improper measurement methodology. The plaintiff's oral and documentary evidence proved insufficient to establish the alleged encroachment by clear and cogent evidence. Notably, the court found that the plaintiff himself had encroached the common pathway. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Kali v. Subramani (O.S. 101/2020) Court Decision: The District Munsif at Madurantakam dismissed the suit filed by Kali against Subramani on June 2, 2026. The plaintiff failed to prove the alleged encroachment of 2.5 feet by the defendant into the common pathway (Schedule B property) and thus was denied mandatory and permanent injunction relief. Key Reasoning: The court relied primarily on a second advocate commissioner's report (conducted with assistance from the Deputy Inspector of Surveyor using proper survey methodology and reference stones), which found no encroachment by the defendant. The first advocate commissioner's report, which had found a 1.66 sq.mt. encroachment, was rejected as unreliable due to improper measurement methodology. The plaintiff's oral and documentary evidence proved insufficient to establish the alleged encroachment by clear and cogent evidence. Notably, the court found that the plaintiff himself had encroached the common pathway. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts