N. Radhakrishnan and 10 others vs Kanagam and 3 others — 121/2022
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 25(d),27(c). Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 06th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD190001652022
Filing Number
194/2022
Filing Date
29-08-2022
Registration No
121/2022
Registration Date
29-08-2022
Court
District Munsif Court, Vadipatti
Judge
1-District Munsif, Vadipatti.
Decision Date
06th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
N. Radhakrishnan and 10 others
Adv. Tr. A. Natarajan
N. Vijayakumar
N. Ramesh
L. Gowsalya
Muthuvel
Raja
Panjavarnam
M. Sumathi
Manickavel
Manivannan
Suvetha
Respondent(s)
Kanagam and 3 others
Ananthakumar
N. Vellaichamy
Panjavarnam
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif, Vadipatti.
Disposed
Steps
Steps
Steps
Steps
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-06-2026 | Disposed |
| 21-04-2026 | Steps |
| 23-03-2026 | Steps |
| 16-03-2026 | Steps |
| 24-02-2026 | Steps |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S. No. 121/2022 The District Munsif Court, Vadipatti (18 October 2024) granted a temporary injunction in favor of the petitioners in a family dispute over temple access rights. The court found a prima facie case and balance of convenience favoring the petitioners, who alleged respondents were constructing a compound wall that would restrict access to a family temple. Evidence including photographs and an advocate commissioner's report demonstrated construction preparations near the temple. The court restrained respondents from completing the wall pending final suit disposal, conditioning the order on petitioners proceeding expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: O.S. No. 121/2022 The District Munsif Court, Vadipatti (18 October 2024) granted a temporary injunction in favor of the petitioners in a family dispute over temple access rights. The court found a prima facie case and balance of convenience favoring the petitioners, who alleged respondents were constructing a compound wall that would restrict access to a family temple. Evidence including photographs and an advocate commissioner's report demonstrated construction preparations near the temple. The court restrained respondents from completing the wall pending final suit disposal, conditioning the order on petitioners proceeding expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts