Jothi vs Sathiyavani — 10/2023

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

Case disposed

AS - Appeal Suit

CNR: TNED050005262023

Filing Number

545/2023

Filing Date

22-May-2023

Registration No

10/2023

Registration Date

10-Jul-2023

Court

Sub Court, Sathyamangalam

Judge

1-Subordinate Judge

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 27-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Suits Valuation Act Section 27(c),52

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Jothi

    Adv. K.R.Annamalai

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sathiyavani

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    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.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Subordinate Judge

  4. 08-Apr-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  5. 30-Mar-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  6. 23-Mar-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  7. 10-Mar-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  8. 05-Mar-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  9. 03-Mar-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  10. 03-Feb-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  11. 30-Jan-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  12. 27-Jan-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  13. 20-Jan-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  14. 08-Jan-2026

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  15. 18-Dec-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  16. 03-Dec-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  17. 27-Nov-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  18. 25-Nov-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  19. 11-Nov-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  20. 04-Nov-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  21. 30-Oct-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  22. 22-Oct-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  23. 16-Oct-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  24. 10-Oct-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  25. 20-Sep-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  26. 08-Sep-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  27. 29-Aug-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  28. 19-Aug-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  29. 13-Aug-2025

    Orders

    Subordinate Judge

  30. 09-Apr-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  31. 28-Jan-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  32. 06-Aug-2024

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  33. 04-Mar-2024

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  34. 28-Nov-2023

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  35. 06-Nov-2023

    Await Records

    Subordinate Judge

  36. 02-Aug-2023

    Await Records

    Subordinate Judge

  37. 10-Jul-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  38. 22-May-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 10/2023

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case