SENTHIL vs SUMATHI — 65/2023
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section ORDERVIIRULES1TO6,. Disposed: Uncontested--Partially Allowed on 08th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSA070002812023
e-Filing Number
30-03-2023
Filing Number
316/2023
Filing Date
28-03-2023
Registration No
65/2023
Registration Date
28-03-2023
Court
Sub Court, Sankari
Judge
1-Subordinate Judge
Decision Date
08th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Partially Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SENTHIL
Adv. SRIDHAR K
Respondent(s)
SUMATHI
SATHYA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 25-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 18-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 02-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
Interim Orders
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts