Natchammai @ Natchammal vs Karuppaiah — 20/2020
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 27(C). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 18th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSV160001852020
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
20/2020
Filing Date
09-06-2010
Registration No
20/2020
Registration Date
09-06-2010
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Singampunari
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Singampunari
Decision Date
18th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Natchammai @ Natchammal
Karuppaiah
Alagarsamy
Respondent(s)
Karuppaiah
Chinnaiah
Sembaiah
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Singampunari
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 17-04-2026 | Judgement | |
| 07-04-2026 | Judgement | |
| 01-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 24-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants regarding a ancestral property (survey nos. 239/2 and 239/3) in Selliyampatty village. The court found that the plaintiff failed to produce adequate documentary evidence proving continuous possession and ownership of the property for over 60 years, and did not establish the property's pedigree of inheritance. Since both parties claimed competing rights over the same property (a title dispute existed), the court held that a mere injunction relief without resolving the underlying ownership question was inappropriate and therefore dismissed the case with each party bearing its own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants regarding a ancestral property (survey nos. 239/2 and 239/3) in Selliyampatty village. The court found that the plaintiff failed to produce adequate documentary evidence proving continuous possession and ownership of the property for over 60 years, and did not establish the property's pedigree of inheritance. Since both parties claimed competing rights over the same property (a title dispute existed), the court held that a mere injunction relief without resolving the underlying ownership question was inappropriate and therefore dismissed the case with each party bearing its own 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