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
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
Petitioner(s)
K. Lakshmi
Adv. P. Manickam
Respondent(s)
S. Gopinath
Hearing History
Judge: 2-I Additional District Judge
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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
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
Explore other courts