Durairaj vs Sornam Ammal — 11/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 37(2),25(D). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 16th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSV060000262019
Filing Number
35/2019
Filing Date
20-03-2019
Registration No
11/2019
Registration Date
21-03-2019
Court
District Munsif Court, Devakkottai
Judge
2-District Munsif
Decision Date
16th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Durairaj
Adv. Mr.V.Sundar
Respondent(s)
Sornam Ammal
Anbuselvam
Gandhimathi
Tamilarasi
Kalavathi
K.Jeyaraj
K. Raveendar
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 23-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 18-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: Durairaj v. Sornam Ammal (O.S. No. 11/2019) The District Munsif Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for partition and declaration. The plaintiff claimed the suit property (3 acres, 36 cents) was ancestral property purchased by his father using family income but registered in his mother's (1st defendant's) name. The court found the plaintiff failed to prove this allegation and concluded the property was the 1st defendant's self-earned property purchased through her own income in 1997. As the property was not ancestral, the plaintiff and siblings had no share in it, and the 1st defendant's subsequent sale to the 6th and 7th defendants in 2019 was valid and binding. The suit was dismissed with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary: Durairaj v. Sornam Ammal (O.S. No. 11/2019) The District Munsif Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for partition and declaration. The plaintiff claimed the suit property (3 acres, 36 cents) was ancestral property purchased by his father using family income but registered in his mother's (1st defendant's) name. The court found the plaintiff failed to prove this allegation and concluded the property was the 1st defendant's self-earned property purchased through her own income in 1997. As the property was not ancestral, the plaintiff and siblings had no share in it, and the 1st defendant's subsequent sale to the 6th and 7th defendants in 2019 was valid and binding. The suit was dismissed with no order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts