Jothi vs Sathiyavani — 10/2023

Case under Suitsvaluationact Section 27(c),52. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 09th April 2026.

AS - Appeal Suit

CNR: TNED050005262023

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

545/2023

Filing Date

22-05-2023

Registration No

10/2023

Registration Date

10-07-2023

Court

Sub Court, Sathyamangalam

Judge

1-Subordinate Judge

Decision Date

09th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Acts & Sections

SuitsValuationAct Section 27(c),52

Petitioner(s)

Jothi

Adv. K.R.Annamalai

Respondent(s)

Sathiyavani

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge

09-04-2026

Disposed

08-04-2026

For further Proceedings

30-03-2026

For further Proceedings

23-03-2026

For further Proceedings

10-03-2026

For further Proceedings

Final Orders / Judgements

09-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The Subordinate Court of Sathyamangalam set aside the trial court's decree granting permanent injunction to the plaintiff (Sathiyavani) against the defendant (Jothi) in a property boundary dispute. The appellate court found the trial court's conclusion that a common wall existed between the properties was not supported by reliable evidence—the sale deed described only vacant land, and the vendor's testimony was inconsistent and self-contradictory. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to establish lawful possession as required for injunction relief. The appeal was allowed and the suit dismissed with no order on costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Subordinate Court of Sathyamangalam set aside the trial court's decree granting permanent injunction to the plaintiff (Sathiyavani) against the defendant (Jothi) in a property boundary dispute. The appellate court found the trial court's conclusion that a common wall existed between the properties was not supported by reliable evidence—the sale deed described only vacant land, and the vendor's testimony was inconsistent and self-contradictory. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to establish lawful possession as required for injunction relief. The appeal was allowed and the suit dismissed with no order on costs. 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

Sub Court, Sathyamangalam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case