K. Rajandiran vs Velavan Auto Finance, Its Partner A. Jesuraj and 2 others Advocate - SEILVARAJU.M — 200138/2018
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section OVIIR1to6. Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 11th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSA080001442018
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
200138/2018
Filing Date
05-09-2018
Registration No
200138/2018
Registration Date
07-09-2018
Court
District Munsif Court, Sankari
Judge
2-District Munsif, Sankari
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed without cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K. Rajandiran
Adv. K.N. Natarajan
Respondent(s)
Velavan Auto Finance, Its Partner A. Jesuraj and 2 others Advocate - SEILVARAJU.M
A. Jesuraj, partner of Sri Velavan Auto Finance
Adv. SEILVARAJU.M
S. Mahendiran partner of Sri Velavan Auto Finance
Adv. SEILVARAJU.M
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif, Sankari
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Judgement
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 09-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 02-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 07-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The District Munsif court granted plaintiff K. Rajendran a permanent injunction restraining defendants Velavan Auto Finance and its partners from interfering with his peaceful possession of the property, holding that while loan agreements exist, they do not confer the right to dispossess without legal process. The court found the plaintiff had established lawful possession through title deed and tax receipts, while the defendants failed to produce evidence or testify, and ruled that mortgage and sale agreements only provide contractual remedies through court, not self-help remedies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The District Munsif court granted plaintiff K. Rajendran a permanent injunction restraining defendants Velavan Auto Finance and its partners from interfering with his peaceful possession of the property, holding that while loan agreements exist, they do not confer the right to dispossess without legal process. The court found the plaintiff had established lawful possession through title deed and tax receipts, while the defendants failed to produce evidence or testify, and ruled that mortgage and sale agreements only provide contractual remedies through court, not self-help remedies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts