Ibrahim Ammal vs Mohamed Arabi — 70/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7,Rule1. Status: Trial. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNRM010027252024
Next Hearing
02nd June 2026
Filing Number
337/2024
Filing Date
13-06-2024
Registration No
70/2024
Registration Date
14-06-2024
Court
Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram
Judge
2-Additional District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ibrahim Ammal
Adv. Thiru. A.Thirunavukkarasu
Respondent(s)
Mohamed Arabi
Aadham Malik
Seeni Meerangani
Kulsiya Banu
Karthikeyan
Vijayakumar
Karmegam
Sub-Registar, Ramanathapuram
District Registrar, Ramanathapuram
District Collector, Ramanathapuram
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional District Judge
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Trial |
| 24-03-2026 | Trial |
| 12-03-2026 | Trial |
| 10-02-2026 | Trial |
| 18-12-2025 | Trial |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Petition Allowed with Cost The Principal District Judge of Ramanathapuram granted a temporary injunction in favor of petitioner Ibrahim Ammal on January 4, 2025, restraining respondents 1-3 from alienating undivided joint family property pending partition suit proceedings. The Court found the petitioner satisfied all three legal tests: prima facie case (as wife entitled to 1/8 share in inherited property), balance of convenience (favoring protection of undivided property from unauthorized sale), and irreparable injury (as respondents were damaging trees and fences to create unauthorized layouts for sale to third parties). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Petition Allowed with Cost The Principal District Judge of Ramanathapuram granted a temporary injunction in favor of petitioner Ibrahim Ammal on January 4, 2025, restraining respondents 1-3 from alienating undivided joint family property pending partition suit proceedings. The Court found the petitioner satisfied all three legal tests: prima facie case (as wife entitled to 1/8 share in inherited property), balance of convenience (favoring protection of undivided property from unauthorized sale), and irreparable injury (as respondents were damaging trees and fences to create unauthorized layouts for sale to third parties). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts