Samy Chinnaiyan vs Adakki — 172/2017
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 7. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 26th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNMD150001962017
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
206/2017
Filing Date
22-06-2017
Registration No
172/2017
Registration Date
08-08-2017
Court
District Munsif Court, Melur
Judge
1-District Munsif, Melur.
Decision Date
26th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Samy Chinnaiyan
Adv. S. Ramasamy
Respondent(s)
Adakki
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif, Melur.
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 02-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 20-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 17-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The District Commercial Court in Melur, Tamil Nadu dismissed the plaintiff's suit (Case No. 172/2017) challenging his right to a property and seeking permanent injunction against defendants 1-5 and mandatory injunction against defendants 6-7. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession and exclusive right to the disputed land (Survey Nos. 329/1 and 329/2), as the government records showed the property as government wasteland. The court ruled against the plaintiff on questions of possession, permanent injunction entitlement, and rejected the mandatory injunction plea citing statutory restrictions under the Specific Relief Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The District Commercial Court in Melur, Tamil Nadu dismissed the plaintiff's suit (Case No. 172/2017) challenging his right to a property and seeking permanent injunction against defendants 1-5 and mandatory injunction against defendants 6-7. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession and exclusive right to the disputed land (Survey Nos. 329/1 and 329/2), as the government records showed the property as government wasteland. The court ruled against the plaintiff on questions of possession, permanent injunction entitlement, and rejected the mandatory injunction plea citing statutory restrictions under the Specific Relief Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts