S. Kasinathan and another vs Dhanalakshmi and 3 Others Advocate - V.C.Jeyashankar — 61/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/S27(c). Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 05th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTI140000792020
Filing Number
82/2020
Filing Date
03-03-2020
Registration No
61/2020
Registration Date
03-03-2020
Court
District Munsif Court, Kangeyam
Judge
1-District Munsif
Decision Date
05th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed without cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
S. Kasinathan and another
Adv. Iswaramoorthy C
S. Senthilkumar
Adv. Iswaramoorthy C
Respondent(s)
Dhanalakshmi and 3 Others Advocate - V.C.Jeyashankar
Rajalakshmi
Parameswaran
Adv. Jeyasankar C
Amutha
Adv. Jeyasankar C
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-02-2026 | Judgement |
| 24-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 23-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 19-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Court Decision The District Court of Kangayam dismissed the defendants' counterclaims and granted the plaintiffs' petition for a permanent injunction. The court held that the plaintiffs have established their exclusive ownership and peaceful possession of the property (0.18-1/2 cents of land) for over 80 years through inheritance and valid registration documents. The court found that the defendants have no rights to the northern portion of the property and ordered that the defendants cannot interfere with the plaintiffs' enjoyment and exclusive possession of the property in any manner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary of Court Decision The District Court of Kangayam dismissed the defendants' counterclaims and granted the plaintiffs' petition for a permanent injunction. The court held that the plaintiffs have established their exclusive ownership and peaceful possession of the property (0.18-1/2 cents of land) for over 80 years through inheritance and valid registration documents. The court found that the defendants have no rights to the northern portion of the property and ordered that the defendants cannot interfere with the plaintiffs' enjoyment and exclusive possession of the property in any manner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts