K. Lakshmi vs S. Gopinath — 602/2023

Case under Suitsvaluationact Section 25(b). Disposed: Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree on 25th March 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNED010051672023

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1292/2023

Filing Date

08-09-2023

Registration No

602/2023

Registration Date

27-09-2023

Court

Principal District Court, Erode

Judge

2-I Additional District Judge

Decision Date

25th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree

Acts & Sections

SuitsValuationAct Section 25(b)

Petitioner(s)

K. Lakshmi

Adv. P. Manickam

Respondent(s)

S. Gopinath

Hearing History

Judge: 2-I Additional District Judge

25-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

Judgement

10-03-2026

Judgement

26-11-2025

For further Proceedings

25-06-2025

For further Proceedings

Final Orders / Judgements

25-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary Court Decision: The Additional District Court of Erode declared the plaintiff (Lakshmi) as the full owner of the property and granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from creating any encumbrance or alteration to the property. The court dismissed the case as allowed, with costs awarded to the plaintiff. Key Reasoning: The court found that the property was validly inherited by the plaintiff through a registered will dated March 10, 1989, executed by Pavalaiyammal in sound mind and disposition. Following Pavalaiyammal's death in 1990, the will came into effect, and the plaintiff has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property since then. The court rejected the defendant's claims and upheld the plaintiff's title based on the documented evidence presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Court Decision: The Additional District Court of Erode declared the plaintiff (Lakshmi) as the full owner of the property and granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from creating any encumbrance or alteration to the property. The court dismissed the case as allowed, with costs awarded to the plaintiff. Key Reasoning: The court found that the property was validly inherited by the plaintiff through a registered will dated March 10, 1989, executed by Pavalaiyammal in sound mind and disposition. Following Pavalaiyammal's death in 1990, the will came into effect, and the plaintiff has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property since then. The court rejected the defendant's claims and upheld the plaintiff's title based on the documented evidence presented. 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