Mumtaz vs Chan Basha — 200118/2014
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 37(2),27(c). Status: Judgement. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNKI110000522014
Next Hearing
01st June 2026
Filing Number
200118/2014
Filing Date
05-02-2014
Registration No
200118/2014
Registration Date
05-02-2014
Court
Sub Court, Uthangarai
Judge
2-Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mumtaz
Adv. RAMASAMY.K
Jameel
Adv. RAMASAMY.K
Mujibar
Adv. RAMASAMY.K
Haseena
Adv. RAMASAMY.K
Ayisha
Adv. RAMASAMY.K
K.H.Ameerjan
Adv. RAMASAMY.K
Respondent(s)
Chan Basha
Kamal Basha
Sadiq Basha
Zagir Basha
Farooq Basha
Salim Basha
Kayaz Basha
Sheik Hussain Basha
Umar Mokthiar
Manimegalai
K.Venkatesan
Kumar
Padmavathi
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
Judgement
Judgement
Judgement
Judgement
Reopen
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 21-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 15-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 01-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 23-03-2026 | Reopen |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 200118/2014 Outcome: The court dismissed the petition. The judge ruled against the petitioners (Mumtaz, Jameel, and Mujibar), finding that the respondents (Chan Basha, Kamal Basha, and Sadiq Basha) had valid property rights. The court determined that the petitioners failed to establish their claims regarding the disputed property share, particularly regarding the 1/4 share claimed by the 17th respondent, and held that the sale documents were properly executed despite procedural concerns raised by the petitioners. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 200118/2014 Outcome: The court dismissed the petition. The judge ruled against the petitioners (Mumtaz, Jameel, and Mujibar), finding that the respondents (Chan Basha, Kamal Basha, and Sadiq Basha) had valid property rights. The court determined that the petitioners failed to establish their claims regarding the disputed property share, particularly regarding the 1/4 share claimed by the 17th respondent, and held that the sale documents were properly executed despite procedural concerns raised by the petitioners. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts