Ramkkal vs Mahalakshmi and another — 117/2024
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section U/s27(c). Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 22nd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD190001662024
Next Hearing
22nd June 2026
Filing Number
169/2024
Filing Date
27-09-2024
Registration No
117/2024
Registration Date
27-09-2024
Court
District Munsif Court, Vadipatti
Judge
1-District Munsif, Vadipatti.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramkkal
Adv. Tr.Paramasivam
Respondent(s)
Mahalakshmi and another
Janarthanan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif, Vadipatti.
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
Issues
Issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-06-2026 | IA Pending |
| 18-04-2026 | IA Pending |
| 23-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 16-03-2026 | Issues |
| 18-02-2026 | Issues |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Ramkkal v. Mahalakshmi and Another (O.S. 117/2024) Outcome: Petition dismissed. The court rejected Ramkkal's application for temporary injunction restraining respondents from interfering with her property enjoyment pending the main suit's disposal. Reason: The court found that Ramkkal failed to establish the required legal principles for granting temporary injunction—specifically, she did not prove: (1) a prima facie case of legal right, (2) balance of convenience in her favor, or (3) irreparable injury. While both parties claimed overlapping land rights in a 72-cent property at Vadipatti based on competing settlement deeds, the court determined the disputed property's exact location and ownership could only be resolved through evidence at trial, not in this preliminary stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Ramkkal v. Mahalakshmi and Another (O.S. 117/2024) Outcome: Petition dismissed. The court rejected Ramkkal's application for temporary injunction restraining respondents from interfering with her property enjoyment pending the main suit's disposal. Reason: The court found that Ramkkal failed to establish the required legal principles for granting temporary injunction—specifically, she did not prove: (1) a prima facie case of legal right, (2) balance of convenience in her favor, or (3) irreparable injury. While both parties claimed overlapping land rights in a 72-cent property at Vadipatti based on competing settlement deeds, the court determined the disputed property's exact location and ownership could only be resolved through evidence at trial, not in this preliminary stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts