Mathiyalagan, rep by his Power Agent Rengarasu vs Bartheepan Advocate - Subbu Arumugam — 240/2022
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 25(d). Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 30th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTJ100003112022
Filing Number
335/2022
Filing Date
10-11-2022
Registration No
240/2022
Registration Date
10-11-2022
Court
District Munsif Court, Pattukottai
Judge
3-District Munsif
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed without cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mathiyalagan, rep by his Power Agent Rengarasu
Adv. S.Megala Devi
Respondent(s)
Bartheepan Advocate - Subbu Arumugam
Balasubramanian
Saroja
Nagarethinam
Adv. Subbu Arumugam
Abinaya
Adv. Subbu Arumugam
The Sub Registrar, Addl No.2, Pattukkottai
Adv. GP
The Thasildar, Pattukkottai
Adv. GP
Govt of Tamilnadu, rep by its District Collector, Thanjavur
Adv. GP
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Munsif
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 26-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 24-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 17-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 11-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai, decreed the plaintiff's suit and declared the Settlement Deed (Document No. 657/2011) executed by Valliyammal in favor of the 1st defendant as null and void to the extent it affects the plaintiff's share in the ancestral property. The court found that the plaintiff established superior title based on a 1948 compromise decree and subsequent revenue records, while the defendants failed to substantiate their claims as they remained ex parte and presented no evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai, decreed the plaintiff's suit and declared the Settlement Deed (Document No. 657/2011) executed by Valliyammal in favor of the 1st defendant as null and void to the extent it affects the plaintiff's share in the ancestral property. The court found that the plaintiff established superior title based on a 1948 compromise decree and subsequent revenue records, while the defendants failed to substantiate their claims as they remained ex parte and presented no evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts