Mariammal vs Vasantha — 8/2020
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 25(A). Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 10th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSV150000962020
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
10/2020
Filing Date
27-02-2020
Registration No
8/2020
Registration Date
27-02-2020
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate , Tiruppuvanam
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed without cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mariammal
Adv. Mr.S.Subbarayan
Senthilkumar
Umadevi
Kaleeswari
Murugadevi
Respondent(s)
Vasantha
Kumar
Saravanan
Raja
Murugan
Velusamy
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate , Tiruppuvanam
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 05-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 03-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 19-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 17-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The District Munsiff Court in Tirupuvannam ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a property eviction dispute. The court determined that a property previously awarded to the plaintiffs in an earlier 2004 court case (O.S. No. 7/2004) belongs to them, and ordered the defendants to vacate within one month or face eviction proceedings. The court rejected the defendants' counter-claim for permanent injunction, finding their possession was merely permissive rather than establishing adverse possession rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The District Munsiff Court in Tirupuvannam ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a property eviction dispute. The court determined that a property previously awarded to the plaintiffs in an earlier 2004 court case (O.S. No. 7/2004) belongs to them, and ordered the defendants to vacate within one month or face eviction proceedings. The court rejected the defendants' counter-claim for permanent injunction, finding their possession was merely permissive rather than establishing adverse possession rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts