K. Lakshmi vs S. Gopinath — 602/2023

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

Case disposed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNED010051672023

Filing Number

1292/2023

Filing Date

08-Sep-2023

Registration No

602/2023

Registration Date

27-Sep-2023

Court

Principal District Court, Erode

Judge

2-I Additional District Judge

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree

Last updated 27-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Suits Valuation Act Section 25(b)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.K. Lakshmi

    Adv. P. Manickam

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.S. Gopinath

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    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.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    I Additional District Judge

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    I Additional District Judge

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    I Additional District Judge

  6. 26-Nov-2025

    For further Proceedings

    I Additional District Judge

  7. 25-Jun-2025

    For further Proceedings

    I Additional District Judge

  8. 22-Apr-2025

    For further Proceedings

    I Additional District Judge

  9. 24-Mar-2025

    Arguments

    I Additional District Judge

  10. 24-Feb-2025

    Arguments

    I Additional District Judge

  11. 03-Feb-2025

    Arguments

    I Additional District Judge

  12. 06-Dec-2024

    Arguments

    I Additional District Judge

  13. 25-Oct-2024

    Arguments

    I Additional District Judge

  14. 25-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    I Additional District Judge

  15. 05-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    I Additional District Judge

  16. 24-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    I Additional District Judge

  17. 06-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    I Additional District Judge

  18. 19-Jun-2024

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    I Additional District Judge

  19. 11-Jun-2024

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  20. 11-Jun-2024

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    I Additional District Judge

  21. 24-Apr-2024

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    I Additional District Judge

  22. 21-Feb-2024

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    I Additional District Judge

  23. 20-Dec-2023

    Batta

    I Additional District Judge

  24. 02-Nov-2023

    Service Pending-Summon

    I Additional District Judge

  25. 03-Oct-2023

    Service Pending-Summon

    I Additional District Judge

  26. 27-Sep-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 08-Sep-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 602/2023

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case