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

Case disposed

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

SuitsValuationAct Section 22

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

15-04-2026

Disposed

25-03-2026

Judgement

10-03-2026

Arguments

17-02-2026

Evidence

16-12-2025

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

15-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

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

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Principal District Court, Erode All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case