Janaki vs Nagammal Advocate - Mr.T,Muthuramalingam — 105/2022
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 37(2),25(d),27(c). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 30th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSV140001632022
Filing Number
105/2022
Filing Date
18-07-2022
Registration No
105/2022
Registration Date
18-07-2022
Court
Sub Court, Manamadurai
Judge
1-Sub Judge,Manamadurai
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Janaki
Adv. Mr.A.Nagarathinam B.A,B.L
Suthanthiram
Adv. Mr.A.Nagarathinam M.A,B.L
Karuppuchamy
Adv. Mr.A.Nagarathinam M.A,B.L
Manikandan
Adv. Mr.A.Nagarathinam M.A,B.L
Panjaraja
Adv. Mr.A.Nagarathinam M.A,B.L
Selvi
Adv. Mr.A.Nagarathinam M.A,B.L
Arumugam
Murugan
Adv. Mr.A.Nagarathinam M.A,B.L
Respondent(s)
Nagammal Advocate - Mr.T,Muthuramalingam
Karuppusamy
Adv. Mr.Subbarayan
Ayyammal
Adv. Mr.SPT Sethuramachandran
Azhakitchi
Adv. Mr.T.Muthuramalingam
Annalakshmi
Adv. Mr.Muthukrishnan
Mookkaye
Adv. Mr.T.Muthuramalingam
Azhakitchi
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge,Manamadurai
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 18-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 19-02-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S. No. 105/2022 The court examined a property dispute involving Survey No. 520/4, where the petitioners challenged the respondents' claims regarding ownership and transfer of the property. The court found that the second respondent (Karuppuchamy) had validly sold/transferred the property to another party, and determined that the petitioners lacked legitimate interest in the disputed survey number based on the evidence presented, including documentary records and witness testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: O.S. No. 105/2022 The court examined a property dispute involving Survey No. 520/4, where the petitioners challenged the respondents' claims regarding ownership and transfer of the property. The court found that the second respondent (Karuppuchamy) had validly sold/transferred the property to another party, and determined that the petitioners lacked legitimate interest in the disputed survey number based on the evidence presented, including documentary records and witness testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts