P.Karuppana Kone alias Gopal vs K.Soundarapandiyan — 100173/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 09th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNMD150001832016
Filing Number
100178/2016
Filing Date
02-07-2016
Registration No
100173/2016
Registration Date
02-07-2016
Court
District Munsif Court, Melur
Judge
1-District Munsif, Melur.
Decision Date
09th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
P.Karuppana Kone alias Gopal
Adv. K.Meenakshisundaram
Respondent(s)
K.Soundarapandiyan
C.Periasamy
U.Chandrasekaran
M.Muthupandi
P.Thangam alias Muthukaruppan
Thavamani alias Muthulingam
M.Ushadevi
S.Vellaithai
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif, Melur.
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 25-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 17-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 10-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The District Munsif Court in Madurai dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking a permanent injunction against defendants from interfering with his possession of a property (Survey No. 33, old D.No.1/58, new 1/66 in Eraniam Village). The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his exclusive ownership through proper documentation, as the deeds (dated 17.10.1946 and 13.05.1950) established the property belonged to his mother, not to him, and there were discrepancies in the property descriptions provided by the plaintiff in his pleadings versus the original deed documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The District Munsif Court in Madurai dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking a permanent injunction against defendants from interfering with his possession of a property (Survey No. 33, old D.No.1/58, new 1/66 in Eraniam Village). The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his exclusive ownership through proper documentation, as the deeds (dated 17.10.1946 and 13.05.1950) established the property belonged to his mother, not to him, and there were discrepancies in the property descriptions provided by the plaintiff in his pleadings versus the original deed documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts