R.Muthuramalingam vs Mayandi and 5 others — 51/2022
Case under --- Section 25(b),25(d),27(C). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSV150058632022
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
74/2022
Filing Date
22-11-2022
Registration No
51/2022
Registration Date
22-11-2022
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruppuvanam
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate , Tiruppuvanam
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
R.Muthuramalingam
Adv. T.Muthuramalingam
Respondent(s)
Mayandi and 5 others
Nagarajan
District collector,Sivagangai
District Revenue officer, Sivagangai
Thasildar, Thiruppuvanam
Sub registrar, Thiruppuvanam
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate , Tiruppuvanam
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 02-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 17-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 29-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Petition Dismissed. The court rejected the petitioner's claim based on an unregistered sale deed dated 25.11.1973, holding that such documents cannot be admitted as evidence when the suit itself seeks a declaration of title founded on that unregistered deed. The court ruled that an unregistered sale deed cannot be used even for collateral purposes to establish property rights, following established precedents that collateral transactions must be independent and divisible from transactions requiring registration. No costs were awarded to either party. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Petition Dismissed. The court rejected the petitioner's claim based on an unregistered sale deed dated 25.11.1973, holding that such documents cannot be admitted as evidence when the suit itself seeks a declaration of title founded on that unregistered deed. The court ruled that an unregistered sale deed cannot be used even for collateral purposes to establish property rights, following established precedents that collateral transactions must be independent and divisible from transactions requiring registration. No costs were awarded to either party. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts