Govindasamy Gounder vs Sadhasivam Advocate - V.Agoram D1,D2, — 200583/2014

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7Rule1ofC.P.C,25(b),27(c). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 21st April 2026.

OS - Original Suit (Title)

CNR: TNCG140004722014

Case disposed

Filing Number

200583/2014

Filing Date

15-10-2014

Registration No

200583/2014

Registration Date

28-10-2014

Court

District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam

Judge

2-District Munsif

Decision Date

21st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7Rule1ofC.P.C,25(b),27(c)

Petitioner(s)

Govindasamy Gounder

Adv. K.Ayyasamy

Respondent(s)

Sadhasivam Advocate - V.Agoram D1,D2,

Athilakshmi

Kasiyammal

Muniyammal

Vendamirtham

Pachaiyappan

Hearing History

Judge: 2-District Munsif

21-04-2026

Disposed

20-04-2026

Judgement

08-04-2026

Judgement

06-04-2026

Arguments

27-03-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

21-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary: O.S.No.583/2014 Court Decision: The suit was dismissed. The court upheld the validity of a power of attorney deed dated 11.02.2009 executed by plaintiff Govindasamy Gounder in favor of defendant Sadhasivam, and consequently upheld the sale deed dated 24.08.2011 whereby Sadhasivam transferred the property to his wife (2nd defendant). The court rejected the plaintiff's claim that he intended only a mortgage deed, holding that registered documentary evidence prevails over contradictory oral testimony and that the agent's acts within the scope of authority bind the principal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: O.S.No.583/2014 Court Decision: The suit was dismissed. The court upheld the validity of a power of attorney deed dated 11.02.2009 executed by plaintiff Govindasamy Gounder in favor of defendant Sadhasivam, and consequently upheld the sale deed dated 24.08.2011 whereby Sadhasivam transferred the property to his wife (2nd defendant). The court rejected the plaintiff's claim that he intended only a mortgage deed, holding that registered documentary evidence prevails over contradictory oral testimony and that the agent's acts within the scope of authority bind the principal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case