SENTHIL vs SUMATHI — 65/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section ORDERVIIRULES1TO6. Disposed: Uncontested--Partially Allowed on 08th April 2026.

Case disposed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNSA070002812023

e-Filing Number

30-03-2023

Filing Number

316/2023

Filing Date

28-Mar-2023

Registration No

65/2023

Registration Date

28-Mar-2023

Court

Sub Court, Sankari

Judge

1-Subordinate Judge

Decision Date

08-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Partially Allowed

Last updated 08-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section ORDERVIIRULES1TO6

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SENTHIL

    Adv. SRIDHAR K

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SUMATHI

  2. 2.SATHYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary The court partially allowed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of a property sale agreement. The court directed the defendants to execute a registered sale deed for the property within three months after receiving the remaining purchase amount of Rs. 50,000, and granted an injunction preventing the defendants from creating any encumbrance on the property. The court rejected the alternative claim for recovery of the advance amount of Rs. 1,50,000 with 18% interest, holding that specific performance was the appropriate remedy since the sale agreement was genuine and the plaintiff had paid the advance in good faith. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Subordinate Judge

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Subordinate Judge

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  6. 10-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  7. 02-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  8. 23-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  9. 17-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  10. 10-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  11. 02-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  12. 25-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  13. 18-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  14. 10-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  15. 03-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  16. 13-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  17. 17-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  18. 09-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  19. 06-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  20. 23-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  21. 04-Jun-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Subordinate Judge

  22. 28-Apr-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  23. 10-Feb-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  24. 03-Feb-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  25. 03-Feb-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  26. 06-Jan-2025

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  27. 02-Dec-2024

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  28. 11-Nov-2024

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  29. 23-Oct-2024

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  30. 23-Oct-2024

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  31. 30-Sep-2024

    Trial

    Subordinate Judge

  32. 21-Aug-2024

    Trial

    Subordinate Judge

  33. 10-Jul-2024

    Trial

    Subordinate Judge

  34. 17-Apr-2024

    Trial

    Subordinate Judge

  35. 05-Mar-2024

    Trial

    Subordinate Judge

  36. 06-Jan-2024

    Trial

    Subordinate Judge

  37. 11-Dec-2023

    Issues

    Subordinate Judge

  38. 21-Nov-2023

    Issues

    Subordinate Judge

  39. 11-Sep-2023

    Written Statement

    Subordinate Judge

  40. 25-Jul-2023

    Written Statement

    Subordinate Judge

  41. 28-Mar-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  42. 28-Mar-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 65/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court partially allowed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of a property sale agreement. The court directed the defendants to execute a registered sale deed for the property within three months after receiving the remaining purchase amount of Rs. 50,000, and granted an injunction preventing the defendants from creating any encumbrance on the property. The court rejected the alternative claim for recovery of the advance amount of Rs. 1,50,000 with 18% interest, holding that specific performance was the appropriate remedy since the sale agreement was genuine and the plaintiff had paid the advance in good faith. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case