VISALAKSHI ALIAS VISAMMAL vs M.L.RAMACHANDRAN Advocate - SARAVANAN K — 93/2023
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 25(d) 27(c). Status: Trial. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNRP080001272023
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
209/2023
Filing Date
16-10-2023
Registration No
93/2023
Registration Date
18-12-2023
Court
District Munsif Court, Arakkonam
Judge
4-District Munsif, Arakkonam
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VISALAKSHI ALIAS VISAMMAL
Adv. P.NATARAJA PILLAI
Respondent(s)
M.L.RAMACHANDRAN Advocate - SARAVANAN K
SIVAKUMAR
LOGANATHAN
Adv. SARAVANAN K
CHINNAKALAN
Adv. VENKATESAN S
MOHANA
Adv. GOPINATH A
THE SUB RESGISTRAR
Hearing History
Judge: 4-District Munsif, Arakkonam
Trial
Issues
Issues
Issues
Issues
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Trial | |
| 10-04-2026 | Issues | |
| 08-04-2026 | Issues | |
| 24-03-2026 | Issues | |
| 09-03-2026 | Issues |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Petition ALLOWED. The District Munsif Court permitted Visalakshi to file a suit for permanent injunction and specific performance against defendants regarding a disputed property sale. The plaintiff had executed a sale agreement in 2006 for Rs. 3,47,000 and paid additional amounts, but the defendants sold the property to a third party via a forged deed in 2007 without registering it in the plaintiff's name. The court found the plaintiff's claim meritorious and authorized filing of the specific performance suit within the limitation period. No costs imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Petition ALLOWED. The District Munsif Court permitted Visalakshi to file a suit for permanent injunction and specific performance against defendants regarding a disputed property sale. The plaintiff had executed a sale agreement in 2006 for Rs. 3,47,000 and paid additional amounts, but the defendants sold the property to a third party via a forged deed in 2007 without registering it in the plaintiff's name. The court found the plaintiff's claim meritorious and authorized filing of the specific performance suit within the limitation period. No costs imposed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts