D.ChandhraSekar and others vs Murugesan and three others Advocate - V.Subramanian — 100238/2009

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/oVIIRule1ofcpc. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 28th April 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 28-Apr-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNMD150000602009

Filing Date

31-Aug-2009

Registration No

100238/2009

Registration Date

30-Sep-2009

Court

District Munsif Court, Melur

Judge

1-District Munsif, Melur.

Last updated 19-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section U/oVIIRule1ofcpc

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.D.ChandhraSekar and others

    Adv. V.R.Subbaiah

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Murugesan and three others Advocate - V.Subramanian

Case History

  1. 28-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif, Melur.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif, Melur.

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Steps

    District Munsif, Melur.

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Steps

    District Munsif, Melur.

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Steps

    District Munsif, Melur.

  7. 03-Mar-2026

    Steps

    District Munsif, Melur.

  8. 10-Feb-2026

    Steps

    District Munsif, Melur.

  9. 29-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif, Melur.

  10. 06-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif, Melur.

  11. 08-Dec-2025

    Batta

    District Munsif, Melur.

  12. 08-Dec-2025

    Restored

    District Munsif, Melur.

  13. 08-Dec-2025

    Batta

    District Munsif, Melur.

  14. 10-Nov-2017

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    Case Summary Suit Allowed in Part: The court declared that the first plaintiff is entitled to the joint family property in question and issued a permanent injunction against the defendants. However, the plaintiffs' claim to a 2/3 share in additional properties (items 2-4 of the suit schedule) was dismissed, as was their claim for future profits from those properties. The court found that while the mother's sale of the property without court permission violated the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the first defendant (as purchaser) cannot be penalized, but the mother is barred from unjustly enriching herself. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  15. 10-Nov-2017

    Disposed

    District Munsif, Melur.

  16. 03-Nov-2017

    Judgement

    District Munsif, Melur.

  17. 27-Oct-2017

    Judgement

    District Munsif, Melur.

  18. 22-Sep-2017

    Judgement

    District Munsif, Melur.

  19. 14-Sep-2017

    Judgement

    District Munsif, Melur.

  20. 01-Sep-2017

    Judgement

    District Munsif, Melur.

  21. 11-Aug-2017

    Judgement

    District Munsif, Melur.

  22. 19-Jul-2017

    Judgement

    District Munsif, Melur.

  23. 10-Jul-2017

    Arguments

    District Munsif, Melur.

  24. 17-Jun-2017

    Arguments

    District Munsif, Melur.

  25. 13-Jun-2017

    Arguments

    District Munsif, Melur.

  26. 17-Apr-2017

    Arguments

    District Munsif, Melur.

  27. 27-Mar-2017

    Arguments

    District Munsif, Melur.

  28. 10-Mar-2017

    Arguments

    District Munsif, Melur.

  29. 16-Feb-2017

    Arguments

    District Munsif, Melur.

  30. 06-Feb-2017

    Judgement

    District Munsif, Melur.

  31. 25-Jan-2017

    Judgement

    District Munsif, Melur.

  32. 06-Jan-2017

    Judgement

    District Munsif, Melur.

  33. 15-Dec-2016

    Judgement

    District Munsif, Melur.

  34. 07-Dec-2016

    Judgement

    District Munsif, Melur.

  35. 06-Dec-2016

    Judgement

    District Munsif, Melur.

  36. 14-Nov-2016

    Judgement

    District Munsif, Melur.

  37. 26-Oct-2016

    Arguments

    District Munsif, Melur.

  38. 07-Oct-2016

    Arguments

    District Munsif, Melur.

  39. 22-Sep-2016

    Arguments

    District Munsif, Melur.

  40. 09-Sep-2016

    Enquiry

    District Munsif, Melur.

  41. 07-Sep-2016

    Enquiry

    District Munsif, Melur.

  42. 31-Aug-2016

    Enquiry

    District Munsif, Melur.

  43. 30-Aug-2016

    Enquiry

    District Munsif, Melur.

  44. 19-Aug-2016

    Enquiry

    District Munsif, Melur.

  45. 16-Aug-2016

    Enquiry

    District Munsif, Melur.

  46. 03-Aug-2016

    Enquiry

    District Munsif, Melur.

  47. 27-Jul-2016

    Evidence

    District Munsif, Melur.

  48. 22-Jul-2016

    Evidence

    District Munsif, Melur.

  49. 14-Jul-2016

    Evidence

    District Munsif, Melur.

  50. 13-Jul-2016

    Evidence

    District Munsif, Melur.

  51. 05-Jul-2016

    Evidence

    District Munsif, Melur.

  52. 08-Jun-2016

    Evidence

    District Munsif, Melur.

  53. 28-Apr-2016

    Evidence

    District Munsif, Melur.

  54. 23-Mar-2016

    Appearance

    District Munsif, Melur.

  55. 03-Mar-2016

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif, Melur.

  56. 27-Jan-2016

    Batta

    District Munsif, Melur.

  57. 27-Nov-2015

    Batta

    District Munsif, Melur.

  58. 01-Oct-2015

    Batta

    District Munsif, Melur.

  59. 31-Aug-2015

    Batta

    District Munsif, Melur.

  60. 31-Jul-2015

    Issues

    District Munsif, Melur.

  61. 26-Jun-2015

    Issues

    District Munsif, Melur.

  62. 11-Jun-2015

    Await Reports

    District Munsif, Melur.

  63. 13-Apr-2015

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif, Melur.

  64. 04-Mar-2015

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif, Melur.

  65. 07-Jan-2015

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif, Melur.

  66. 02-Jan-2015

    Appearance

    District Munsif, Melur.

  67. 28-Nov-2014

    Appearance

    District Munsif, Melur.

  68. 13-Nov-2014

    Appearance

    District Munsif, Melur.

  69. 15-Oct-2014

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  70. 31-Aug-2009

    Case filed

    Registration No. 100238/2009

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Suit Allowed in Part: The court declared that the first plaintiff is entitled to the joint family property in question and issued a permanent injunction against the defendants. However, the plaintiffs' claim to a 2/3 share in additional properties (items 2-4 of the suit schedule) was dismissed, as was their claim for future profits from those properties. The court found that while the mother's sale of the property without court permission violated the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the first defendant (as purchaser) cannot be penalized, but the mother is barred from unjustly enriching herself. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case