Jothi vs Sathiyavani — 10/2023
Case under Suitsvaluationact Section 27(c),52. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 09th April 2026.
AS - Appeal Suit
CNR: TNED050005262023
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
Petitioner(s)
Jothi
Adv. K.R.Annamalai
Respondent(s)
Sathiyavani
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge
Disposed
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts