Palaniandi vs Raju thevar and another Advocate - SURESHKUMAR P M — 100317/2008
Case under Coalbearingareas(acquisitionanddevelopment)amendmentandvalidationact Section Order7Rule1. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 05th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD130001842008
Filing Date
30-06-2008
Registration No
100317/2008
Registration Date
30-06-2008
Court
District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam
Judge
1-Principal District Munsif,Thirumangalam
Decision Date
05th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Palaniandi
Adv. N.Namasivayam
Respondent(s)
Raju thevar and another Advocate - SURESHKUMAR P M
Sakkaraithevar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Munsif,Thirumangalam
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
IA Pending
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-06-2026 | Disposed |
| 01-06-2026 | Judgement |
| 29-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 24-04-2026 | IA Pending |
| 22-04-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: OS 317/2008 - Palaniandi v. Raju Thevar and Others Court Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner Palaniandi's suit and rejected his claims. The court found that Palaniandi failed to prove that the disputed property belonged to him or that he had any legal right to it. The court held that while the property was ancestrally owned by Palaniandi's grandfather Karuppaiya, Palaniandi had not established ownership through valid documentary evidence, particularly regarding discrepancies in the title deed naming "Sanasi" as the father instead of "Mukkathever" as claimed. Consequently, the court denied both the injunction relief and the perpetual restraint order sought by Palaniandi and awarded no relief to either party with no costs imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS 317/2008 - Palaniandi v. Raju Thevar and Others Court Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner Palaniandi's suit and rejected his claims. The court found that Palaniandi failed to prove that the disputed property belonged to him or that he had any legal right to it. The court held that while the property was ancestrally owned by Palaniandi's grandfather Karuppaiya, Palaniandi had not established ownership through valid documentary evidence, particularly regarding discrepancies in the title deed naming "Sanasi" as the father instead of "Mukkathever" as claimed. Consequently, the court denied both the injunction relief and the perpetual restraint order sought by Palaniandi and awarded no relief to either party with no costs imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts