R. Anandalakshmi vs M. Baby — 381/2023
Case under Suitsvaluationact Section 22. Disposed: Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree on 15th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNED010030982023
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
811/2023
Filing Date
07-06-2023
Registration No
381/2023
Registration Date
27-06-2023
Court
Principal District Court, Erode
Judge
3-II Additional District Judge
Decision Date
15th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
R. Anandalakshmi
Adv. Su.Radhakrishnan
R. Deepak Dhilipan Raj
R. Nivedha Senbagham
Respondent(s)
M. Baby
Hearing History
Judge: 3-II Additional District Judge
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 25-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 17-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 16-12-2025 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The II Additional District Judge, Erode, decreed the plaintiffs' suit and ordered the defendant to repay Rs. 12,71,700/- (comprising Rs. 8,75,000/- in advance payments plus interest) with 9% annual interest from the suit date to judgment and 6% thereafter until realization. The court found the plaintiffs entitled to relief because the defendant failed to clear title defects (pending suits and missing access road) to the property after receiving advance payments, and subsequently refused to refund the amount despite legal notices, particularly after the original buyer's death. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary The II Additional District Judge, Erode, decreed the plaintiffs' suit and ordered the defendant to repay Rs. 12,71,700/- (comprising Rs. 8,75,000/- in advance payments plus interest) with 9% annual interest from the suit date to judgment and 6% thereafter until realization. The court found the plaintiffs entitled to relief because the defendant failed to clear title defects (pending suits and missing access road) to the property after receiving advance payments, and subsequently refused to refund the amount despite legal notices, particularly after the original buyer's death. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts