R.Thanyapavithra vs S.P.Thangavel — 29/2023
Case under Suitsvaluationact Section 27(c). Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 22nd April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNED060000362023
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
45/2023
Filing Date
15-02-2023
Registration No
29/2023
Registration Date
15-02-2023
Court
District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam
Judge
2-District Munsif
Decision Date
22nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed without cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
R.Thanyapavithra
Adv. S.Helen Elizabeth
Respondent(s)
S.P.Thangavel
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-04-2026 | Judgement | |
| 10-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 06-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 27-03-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Summary: In this Tamil Nadu civil case (OS No. 29/2023, District Munsif Court, Sathy, decided December 2, 2025), the court recorded the plaintiff's testimony regarding a 2-acre agricultural land where he cultivated coconut saplings and relied on a settlement document (Exhibit A-2) from 2018 as evidence of his claim. The court examined documentary evidence (Exhibits A-1 and A-2) regarding the land's permanent possession but found the evidence insufficient to establish the plaintiff's entitlement to permanent rights over the agricultural property, noting that certain facts cannot be verified after harvest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In this Tamil Nadu civil case (OS No. 29/2023, District Munsif Court, Sathy, decided December 2, 2025), the court recorded the plaintiff's testimony regarding a 2-acre agricultural land where he cultivated coconut saplings and relied on a settlement document (Exhibit A-2) from 2018 as evidence of his claim. The court examined documentary evidence (Exhibits A-1 and A-2) regarding the land's permanent possession but found the evidence insufficient to establish the plaintiff's entitlement to permanent rights over the agricultural property, noting that certain facts cannot be verified after harvest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts