EMAYAMANIVASAGAM (a) MANICKAVASAGAM vs TAMILNADU STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KARUR AND 2 OTHERS Advocate - GOVERNMENT PLEADER — 123/2025
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section OR.7R.1. Disposed: Contested--Decreed with cost on 20th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNKR090000972025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
115/2025
Filing Date
24-04-2025
Registration No
123/2025
Registration Date
22-07-2025
Court
District Munsif Court, Kulithalai
Judge
13-Principal District Munsif, Kulithalai
Decision Date
20th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed with cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
EMAYAMANIVASAGAM (a) MANICKAVASAGAM
Adv. P.NAGESWARAN
Respondent(s)
TAMILNADU STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KARUR AND 2 OTHERS Advocate - GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THE TAHSILDAR
Adv. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
VILLAGE ADMINISTRATION OFFICER
Adv. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THE SUB REGISTRAR
Adv. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SATHAVELAR
Adv. M.Gayathiri
Hearing History
Judge: 13-Principal District Munsif, Kulithalai
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 18-04-2026 | Judgement | |
| 15-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 08-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 27-03-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Summary The Primary District Civil Court at Kulithalai declared that the two names "Manikavāsagam" and "Iyannivasagam" recorded in the 1984 land deed (Document No. 619/1984) refer to the same person—the plaintiff. The court allowed the plaintiff's declaration suit based on evidence including school certificates, government documents, and property records, all consistently showing one identity despite the name variations that arose from administrative errors. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Summary The Primary District Civil Court at Kulithalai declared that the two names "Manikavāsagam" and "Iyannivasagam" recorded in the 1984 land deed (Document No. 619/1984) refer to the same person—the plaintiff. The court allowed the plaintiff's declaration suit based on evidence including school certificates, government documents, and property records, all consistently showing one identity despite the name variations that arose from administrative errors. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts