Panneerselvam vs Sundarasan Advocate - Tr.C. Govindarajan B.A., B.L., — 41/2021
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 7,1. Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 27th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTJ270004882021
Filing Number
41/2021
Filing Date
27-07-2021
Registration No
41/2021
Registration Date
27-07-2021
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvidaimaruthur
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvidaimarudur
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed without cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Panneerselvam
Adv. S.R.Murali, B.L.,
Respondent(s)
Sundarasan Advocate - Tr.C. Govindarajan B.A., B.L.,
Rajavelu
Adv. Tr.C. Govindarajan B.A., B.L.,
Pazhani @ Sankar
Adv. Tr.C. Govindarajan B.A., B.L.,
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvidaimarudur
Disposed
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 14-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 13-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 11-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 04-03-2026 | IA Pending |
Final Orders / Judgements
The District Munsif Court in Tiruvidaimaruthur, Tamil Nadu, decided a property dispute case (O.S. 41/2021) involving agricultural land in Thirumanglakudi village. The court granted an injunction in favor of the plaintiff, ordering that the defendants shall not interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the disputed agricultural lands (totaling 7 acres 66 cents across multiple plot numbers). The court dismissed the defendants' claims and ordered no cost against them, based on a compromise settlement agreement accepted by both parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The District Munsif Court in Tiruvidaimaruthur, Tamil Nadu, decided a property dispute case (O.S. 41/2021) involving agricultural land in Thirumanglakudi village. The court granted an injunction in favor of the plaintiff, ordering that the defendants shall not interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the disputed agricultural lands (totaling 7 acres 66 cents across multiple plot numbers). The court dismissed the defendants' claims and ordered no cost against them, based on a compromise settlement agreement accepted by both parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts