Palanichami vs Muniyandi and 5 others Advocate - Mr.S.N. Yuvaraja Manikandan — 3/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7,1. Disposed: Contested--Partially Allowed on 06th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNRM090000062020
Filing Number
6/2020
Filing Date
10-02-2020
Registration No
3/2020
Registration Date
10-02-2020
Court
District Munsif Court, Mudhukulathur
Judge
1-District Munsif
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Partially Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Palanichami
Adv. Mr.K.Alagarsamy
Respondent(s)
Muniyandi and 5 others Advocate - Mr.S.N. Yuvaraja Manikandan
Rajalakshmi
Adv. Mr.S.N. Yuvaraja Manikandan
Rajenthiran
Adv. Mr.S.N. Yuvaraja Manikandan
District Collector . Ramanathapuram
Adv. Mr.G.Saravanan
Block Development Officer
Adv. Mr.G.Saravanan
Tashildhar
Adv. Mr.G.Saravanan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-02-2026 | Judgement |
| 23-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 20-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 11-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The District Munsif court partially decreed the suit, declaring the disputed properties as common pathways but dismissing the plaintiff's request for permanent injunction against the defendants. The court found that survey numbers 378/5 and 377/12 are public pathways based on evidence that they have been used as such, despite revenue records not officially designating them as pathways. However, since the plaintiff admitted the defendants had already constructed on the property, the court held that he should have sought mandatory injunction (to remove constructions) rather than preventive injunction, and therefore dismissed that relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The District Munsif court partially decreed the suit, declaring the disputed properties as common pathways but dismissing the plaintiff's request for permanent injunction against the defendants. The court found that survey numbers 378/5 and 377/12 are public pathways based on evidence that they have been used as such, despite revenue records not officially designating them as pathways. However, since the plaintiff admitted the defendants had already constructed on the property, the court held that he should have sought mandatory injunction (to remove constructions) rather than preventive injunction, and therefore dismissed that relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts