Thirumoolammal, vs Vellaithayee, — 243/2013
Case under --- Section CpcOrder7Rule1. Disposed: Uncontested--Allowed on 02nd April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNDG160002172019
Filing Number
243/2013
Filing Date
16-08-2013
Registration No
243/2013
Registration Date
16-08-2013
Court
Principal District Munsif Court, Vedasandur
Judge
3-Principal District Munsif
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Thirumoolammal,
Balasubramani,
Manickam
Adv. N.T.R.Vijay Kumar
Respondent(s)
Vellaithayee,
Ramasamy,
Manikkam,
Thangaraj Advocate - Exparte
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Principal District Munsif
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 03-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 12-02-2026 | Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Principal District Munsif Court, Vedasandur, granted a declaration judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that a sale deed (Document No. 470/2006) dated 7.3.2006 executed by defendants 1 and 2 over the "thawa" (agricultural) property is not valid with respect to the portion of land inherited by the plaintiffs through succession. The court also issued a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from creating any interference or obstruction to the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Principal District Munsif Court, Vedasandur, granted a declaration judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that a sale deed (Document No. 470/2006) dated 7.3.2006 executed by defendants 1 and 2 over the "thawa" (agricultural) property is not valid with respect to the portion of land inherited by the plaintiffs through succession. The court also issued a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from creating any interference or obstruction to the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts