Raman @ Ramasamy vs Chinnaraman and another — 58/2019
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 07th April 2026.
AS - Appeal Suit
CNR: TNMD240001052019
Filing Number
105/2019
Filing Date
06-06-2019
Registration No
58/2019
Registration Date
06-06-2019
Court
Sub Court, Usilampatti
Judge
3-Sub Judge, Usilampatti
Decision Date
07th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Raman @ Ramasamy
Adv. Tr.A.C. Balachandran
Respondent(s)
Chinnaraman and another
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Sub Judge, Usilampatti
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 23-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 58/2019 Summary Raman @ Ramasamy v. Chinnaraman and others The court dismissed the appellant's appeal challenging a 2015 trial court judgment concerning disputed property rights. The trial court had partially granted relief on certain property parcels (items 1-4) but dismissed claims regarding item 5, finding the appellant lacked joint ownership rights to that particular property. The appellate court upheld this decision, determining the appellant had failed to prove common enjoyment or co-ownership of the disputed land parcel and thus was not entitled to the injunction sought against the respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case 58/2019 Summary Raman @ Ramasamy v. Chinnaraman and others The court dismissed the appellant's appeal challenging a 2015 trial court judgment concerning disputed property rights. The trial court had partially granted relief on certain property parcels (items 1-4) but dismissed claims regarding item 5, finding the appellant lacked joint ownership rights to that particular property. The appellate court upheld this decision, determining the appellant had failed to prove common enjoyment or co-ownership of the disputed land parcel and thus was not entitled to the injunction sought against the respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts