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

IA Pending

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

CodeofCivilProcedure Section U/s27(c)

Petitioner(s)

Ramkkal

Adv. Tr.Paramasivam

Respondent(s)

Mahalakshmi and another

Janarthanan

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Munsif, Vadipatti.

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

29-01-2026
Copy of Judgment/Order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District Munsif Court, Vadipatti All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case