R.Eswaran and 2 others vs K.Selvi — 7/2023
Case under --- Section 25(b). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 16th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSV150003182023
Filing Number
10/2023
Filing Date
24-01-2023
Registration No
7/2023
Registration Date
24-01-2023
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate , Tiruppuvanam
Decision Date
16th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
R.Eswaran and 2 others
Adv. SPT.Sethuramachandran
R.Rajai
R.Rajapandi
Respondent(s)
K.Selvi
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate , Tiruppuvanam
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 02-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 17-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 03-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 7/2023 The court dismissed the petitioners' claim that they hold ownership rights to agricultural land (called "thawa" in local terminology) through ancestral possession. The court found that the land originally belonged to C. Rasuthevar, was partitioned in 1967 to C. Adhimoolam (the respondent's maternal grandfather), and subsequently transferred to the petitioners' father C. Ramuthevar. However, the court determined the petitioners failed to prove continuous possession and are barred by the doctrine of estoppel due to contradictory statements about when the partition occurred. The court rejected the petitioners' plea for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction against the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 7/2023 The court dismissed the petitioners' claim that they hold ownership rights to agricultural land (called "thawa" in local terminology) through ancestral possession. The court found that the land originally belonged to C. Rasuthevar, was partitioned in 1967 to C. Adhimoolam (the respondent's maternal grandfather), and subsequently transferred to the petitioners' father C. Ramuthevar. However, the court determined the petitioners failed to prove continuous possession and are barred by the doctrine of estoppel due to contradictory statements about when the partition occurred. The court rejected the petitioners' plea for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction against the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts