Ayeshabeevi vs Rahima beevi Advocate - N.Palanisamy — 46/2008
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7R1. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 12th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNDG160010232019
Filing Number
46/2008
Filing Date
07-02-2008
Registration No
46/2008
Registration Date
07-02-2008
Court
Principal District Munsif Court, Vedasandur
Judge
3-Principal District Munsif
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ayeshabeevi
Adv. B.Ganesan
Respondent(s)
Rahima beevi Advocate - N.Palanisamy
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Principal District Munsif
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 02-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 25-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 23-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 13-01-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff Aisha Beevi's suit for permanent injunction against defendant Rahima Beevi. While the plaintiff proved she was in possession of the disputed property and the defendant had encroached upon it by digging pits to build a house, the court held that the plaintiff should have filed a comprehensive suit for declaration of title, possession, and injunction—not merely for injunction—since the defendant challenged the plaintiff's title and denied the existence of the common boundary wall. The court applied Supreme Court precedent requiring that when a defendant disputes the plaintiff's title and the plaintiff's title is under a "cloud," a declaration suit is necessary alongside an injunction claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff Aisha Beevi's suit for permanent injunction against defendant Rahima Beevi. While the plaintiff proved she was in possession of the disputed property and the defendant had encroached upon it by digging pits to build a house, the court held that the plaintiff should have filed a comprehensive suit for declaration of title, possession, and injunction—not merely for injunction—since the defendant challenged the plaintiff's title and denied the existence of the common boundary wall. The court applied Supreme Court precedent requiring that when a defendant disputes the plaintiff's title and the plaintiff's title is under a "cloud," a declaration suit is necessary alongside an injunction claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts