S.Baskar vs R.Sundar Raj — 38/2021
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 25 d. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 07th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD190000562021
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
74/2021
Filing Date
22-03-2021
Registration No
38/2021
Registration Date
22-03-2021
Court
District Munsif Court, Vadipatti
Judge
1-District Munsif, Vadipatti.
Decision Date
07th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
S.Baskar
Adv. P.Chinna Raja
S.chitra
Respondent(s)
R.Sundar Raj
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif, Vadipatti.
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 27-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 25-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 24-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 17-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The District Munsif Court of Vadipatti dismissed the plaintiffs' suit seeking declaration of joint title, mandatory injunction to remove encroachment, and nullification of a 2001 sale deed. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim that a 1.5ft × 33ft property was designated as common property under an alleged 1965 oral partition among three ancestral heirs. Applying the Supreme Court's *Vineeta Sharma* precedent, the court held that oral partition claims require supporting public documents and cannot rest on oral evidence alone; since the plaintiffs provided no revenue records corroborating the partition and property dimensions contradicted official records, all reliefs were denied and the suit was dismissed without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary The District Munsif Court of Vadipatti dismissed the plaintiffs' suit seeking declaration of joint title, mandatory injunction to remove encroachment, and nullification of a 2001 sale deed. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim that a 1.5ft × 33ft property was designated as common property under an alleged 1965 oral partition among three ancestral heirs. Applying the Supreme Court's *Vineeta Sharma* precedent, the court held that oral partition claims require supporting public documents and cannot rest on oral evidence alone; since the plaintiffs provided no revenue records corroborating the partition and property dimensions contradicted official records, all reliefs were denied and the suit was dismissed without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts