SANGAPILLAI vs NALLUSAMY Advocate - M.PARAMASHIVAM — 72/2020
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section OR7R1. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 27th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNKR090001222020
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
185/2020
Filing Date
14-07-2020
Registration No
72/2020
Registration Date
31-07-2020
Court
District Munsif Court, Kulithalai
Judge
16-Additional District Munsif, Kulithalai
Decision Date
27th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SANGAPILLAI
Adv. B.SATHISHKUMAR
Respondent(s)
NALLUSAMY Advocate - M.PARAMASHIVAM
Hearing History
Judge: 16-Additional District Munsif, Kulithalai
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 24-04-2026 | Judgement | |
| 27-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 24-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The court dismissed a permanent injunction suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant regarding disputed agricultural land parcels. The plaintiff claimed ownership of two survey numbers (475/2B and 475/2D) purchased in 2014 and argued that the defendant obstructed his peaceful possession when he attempted to fence the property on June 28, 2020. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant actually interfered with his possession of the suit property, as the plaintiff provided no concrete evidence of crops being cultivated or farming activities. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, holding that the plaintiff approached the court without clean hands and dismissed the suit entirely. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary The court dismissed a permanent injunction suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant regarding disputed agricultural land parcels. The plaintiff claimed ownership of two survey numbers (475/2B and 475/2D) purchased in 2014 and argued that the defendant obstructed his peaceful possession when he attempted to fence the property on June 28, 2020. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant actually interfered with his possession of the suit property, as the plaintiff provided no concrete evidence of crops being cultivated or farming activities. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, holding that the plaintiff approached the court without clean hands and dismissed the suit entirely. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts