C. Sundaralingam vs Rajavel Advocate - Adv T.Jeyachandran — 800092/2011
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 29th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNKK040005382011
Filing Number
800092/2011
Filing Date
14-02-2011
Registration No
800092/2011
Registration Date
14-02-2011
Court
Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari
Judge
8-II Additional District Munsif
Decision Date
29th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed without cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
C. Sundaralingam
Adv. Adv. Mr. K. Subhaharavel
Respondent(s)
Rajavel Advocate - Adv T.Jeyachandran
The Commissioner, Nagercoil Municipal Corporation.
Adv. Adv A.Samuel Edwin
The District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District
Adv. Government Pleader
Hearing History
Judge: 8-II Additional District Munsif
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 20-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 16-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 15-04-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court granted the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over a 13-cent property in Nagercoil. The plaintiff established his absolute ownership through a sale deed (1954), partition deed (1976), and land tax receipts, proving continuous possession. Although defendants challenged the extent as only 9 cents and claimed encroachment, the court found no documentary evidence of the property's reduction in size and rejected the defendants' allegations, noting they failed to appoint an advocate commissioner to prove their claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The court granted the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over a 13-cent property in Nagercoil. The plaintiff established his absolute ownership through a sale deed (1954), partition deed (1976), and land tax receipts, proving continuous possession. Although defendants challenged the extent as only 9 cents and claimed encroachment, the court found no documentary evidence of the property's reduction in size and rejected the defendants' allegations, noting they failed to appoint an advocate commissioner to prove their claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts