Gnana malar and 2 others vs G.M.D.Raj Advocate - C. Ashok Kumar — 600071/2018

Case under --- Section 26. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 15th April 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNKK040001122018

Case disposed

Filing Number

156/2018

Filing Date

04-04-2018

Registration No

600071/2018

Registration Date

06-04-2018

Court

Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari

Judge

6-Principal District Munsif

Decision Date

15th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Acts & Sections

--- Section 26
Ia/11/2025 Classification : 151 Petition Section Gnana malar and 2 othersDevadhas

Petitioner(s)

Gnana malar and 2 others

Adv. Anand A.Wilson

Anisha Rose

Adv. Adv. Anand A Wilson

Ancellin Rose

Adv. Adv. Anand A Wilson

Respondent(s)

G.M.D.Raj Advocate - C. Ashok Kumar

Hearing History

Judge: 6-Principal District Munsif

15-04-2026

Disposed

07-04-2026

Judgement

02-04-2026

Judgement

25-03-2026

Judgement

17-03-2026

Arguments

Interim Orders

08-08-2025
Deposition
22-08-2025
Deposition
11-09-2025
Deposition
08-11-2025
Deposition
27-11-2025
Deposition
22-01-2026
Deposition
27-01-2026
Deposition
30-01-2026
Deposition
05-02-2026
Deposition
11-02-2026
Deposition

The court found that the plaintiff has established ownership of 3.4 acres of land in Alagappapuram based on a registered deed, while rejecting the defendant's claims regarding survey number 961/2 as lacking proper documentary evidence. The court held that the defendant's assertions about verbal gifts and historical land divisions were not supported by credible testimony or written records, thereby upholding the plaintiff's title to the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court found that the plaintiff has established ownership of 3.4 acres of land in Alagappapuram based on a registered deed, while rejecting the defendant's claims regarding survey number 961/2 as lacking proper documentary evidence. The court held that the defendant's assertions about verbal gifts and historical land divisions were not supported by credible testimony or written records, thereby upholding the plaintiff's title to the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case