Ramasamy vs Adham Ali — 25/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section or7 r1. Disposed: Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree on 26th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNKR090002112025
e-Filing Number
27-11-2025
Filing Number
255/2025
Filing Date
28-Nov-2025
Registration No
25/2026
Registration Date
07-Feb-2026
Court
District Munsif Court, Kulithalai
Judge
13-Principal District Munsif, Kulithalai
Decision Date
26-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree
Last updated 18-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Ramasamy
Adv. Bhaskar S
-
2.Dharmaraj
Adv. Bhaskar S
-
3.Vellaiyammal
Adv. Bhaskar S
-
4.Roja
Adv. Bhaskar S
Respondent(s)
-
1.Adham Ali
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
26-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
This Tamil judgment from the Kulithalai Primary District Court (O.S. No. 25/2026, dated 26.03.2026) allows the plaintiffs' claim to have an encumbered property registration (Entry No. 01/1989) declared void and removed from the registrar's records within two months. The court found that the defendants failed to take any legal action to enforce a 1989 execution decree against the property, effectively abandoning their claim, and accepted the plaintiffs' evidence establishing their rightful possession and heirship of the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District Munsif, Kulithalai
-
18-Mar-2026
Judgement
Principal District Munsif, Kulithalai
-
16-Mar-2026
Copy of Oral Evidence / DepositionView PDF
-
16-Mar-2026
Arguments
Principal District Munsif, Kulithalai
-
09-Mar-2026
Ex-Parte Evidence
Principal District Munsif, Kulithalai
-
07-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 25/2026
This Tamil judgment from the Kulithalai Primary District Court (O.S. No. 25/2026, dated 26.03.2026) allows the plaintiffs' claim to have an encumbered property registration (Entry No. 01/1989) declared void and removed from the registrar's records within two months. The court found that the defendants failed to take any legal action to enforce a 1989 execution decree against the property, effectively abandoning their claim, and accepted the plaintiffs' evidence establishing their rightful possession and heirship of the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts