Paramasivam vs Karthick — 100019/2018
Case under --- Section SVA. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 18th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD130000462018
Filing Number
46/2018
Filing Date
23-01-2018
Registration No
100019/2018
Registration Date
23-01-2018
Court
District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam
Judge
1-Principal District Munsif,Thirumangalam
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Paramasivam
Adv. Thangaswamy
Respondent(s)
Karthick
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Munsif,Thirumangalam
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 07-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 08-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 19-12-2025 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Paramasivam v. Karthick (OS 19/2018) The Primary District Court in Tiruvannamalai dismissed the suit filed by Paramasivam and 16 others against Karthick on March 18, 2026. The petitioners sought a declaration that the disputed "Thava" property (approximately 2 acres) was jointly owned by them as descendants of their grandfather Perumalsamy Devar, and requested a permanent injunction against the defendant's interference. The court found insufficient documentary evidence to establish the petitioners' joint ownership claim—particularly, no credible deed proving the remaining 1.25 acres belonged to their ancestor. While witness testimony supported the petitioners' account, critical supporting documents were either missing or unrelated to the disputed property. Consequently, the court ruled against awarding either the declaration or injunction sought, and dismissed the case without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Paramasivam v. Karthick (OS 19/2018) The Primary District Court in Tiruvannamalai dismissed the suit filed by Paramasivam and 16 others against Karthick on March 18, 2026. The petitioners sought a declaration that the disputed "Thava" property (approximately 2 acres) was jointly owned by them as descendants of their grandfather Perumalsamy Devar, and requested a permanent injunction against the defendant's interference. The court found insufficient documentary evidence to establish the petitioners' joint ownership claim—particularly, no credible deed proving the remaining 1.25 acres belonged to their ancestor. While witness testimony supported the petitioners' account, critical supporting documents were either missing or unrelated to the disputed property. Consequently, the court ruled against awarding either the declaration or injunction sought, and dismissed the case without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts