Devagi W/o. Murugan, Phichanur Village vs Subramani S/o. Veeragoundar, Chinnakoothampatti Village — 57/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1to6,Sec26. Status: Trial. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.

Trial Next hearing 08-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNKI070015752025

Filing Number

108/2025

Filing Date

20-Aug-2025

Registration No

57/2025

Registration Date

20-Aug-2025

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pochampalli

Judge

1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1to6,Sec26

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Devagi W/o. Murugan, Phichanur Village

    Adv. ASHOK KUMAR.G

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Subramani S/o. Veeragoundar, Chinnakoothampatti Village

  2. 2.Palaniyammal W/o. Subramani, Chinnakoothampatti Village

  3. 3.Saravanan S/o. Subramani, Chinnakoothampatti Village

  4. 4.Latha W/o. Saravanan, Chinnakoothampatti Village

Case History

  1. 08-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 29-Apr-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

  3. 29-Apr-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: O.S. No. 57/2025 Outcome: The interlocutory application for temporary injunction is dismissed. Key Facts: Devagi sought to restrain defendants from interfering with her possession of a suit property inherited from her father (1984). She claimed defendants unlawfully obstructed her construction after allegedly vacating in 2019. Defendants countered that a 2007 sale agreement gave them continuous possession, supported by tax receipts and construction activities. Court's Reasoning: The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction. While title was not seriously disputed, actual physical possession was heavily contested with both parties claiming possession based on rival documents. The court held that possession—critical for immovable property injunctions—could not be conclusively determined at the interlocutory stage and requires full trial evidence. Balance of convenience also favored defendants, and irreparable injury was unsubstantiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 29-Apr-2026

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli

  5. 15-Apr-2026

    Issues

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli

  6. 07-Apr-2026

    Issues

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli

  7. 02-Apr-2026

    Written Statement

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli

  8. 24-Mar-2026

    Written Statement

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli

  9. 17-Mar-2026

    Written Statement

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli

  10. 12-Mar-2026

    Written Statement

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli

  11. 26-Feb-2026

    Written Statement

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli

  12. 18-Feb-2026

    Written Statement

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli

  13. 07-Jan-2026

    Written Statement

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli

  14. 12-Nov-2025

    Written Statement

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli

  15. 26-Sep-2025

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli

  16. 20-Aug-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  17. 20-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 57/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: O.S. No. 57/2025 Outcome: The interlocutory application for temporary injunction is dismissed. Key Facts: Devagi sought to restrain defendants from interfering with her possession of a suit property inherited from her father (1984). She claimed defendants unlawfully obstructed her construction after allegedly vacating in 2019. Defendants countered that a 2007 sale agreement gave them continuous possession, supported by tax receipts and construction activities. Court's Reasoning: The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction. While title was not seriously disputed, actual physical possession was heavily contested with both parties claiming possession based on rival documents. The court held that possession—critical for immovable property injunctions—could not be conclusively determined at the interlocutory stage and requires full trial evidence. Balance of convenience also favored defendants, and irreparable injury was unsubstantiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case