Perumalsamy S/o. Jagadeesa Mudaliar vs Gangavishnu S/o. Chokkalinga Nainar — 192/2025

Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 22. Disposed: Uncontested--Decreed with cost on 01st April 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNTM040005292025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

542/2025

Filing Date

02-09-2025

Registration No

192/2025

Registration Date

16-09-2025

Court

Sub Court, Cheyyar

Judge

2-Additional Sub JudgeCheyyar

Decision Date

01st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Decreed with cost

Acts & Sections

COURT FEES ACT, 1870 Section 22

Petitioner(s)

Perumalsamy S/o. Jagadeesa Mudaliar

Adv. Mr. S. Anandhan, M.A., B.L.,

Respondent(s)

Gangavishnu S/o. Chokkalinga Nainar

Gubendiran S/o. Gangavishnu

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Additional Sub JudgeCheyyar

01-04-2026

Disposed

30-03-2026

Judgement

23-03-2026

Judgement

10-03-2026

Evidence

23-02-2026

Ex-Parte Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

01-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The Additional Subordinate Court in Tiruvannamalai ruled that the defendants must repay the plaintiff ₹3,82,480 plus interest of 12% per annum from the case filing date until judgment, and an additional 6% interest thereafter on the principal amount of ₹2,25,000. The court found that the defendants had borrowed ₹2,25,000 from the plaintiff on September 3, 2022, for family and wedding expenses, and provided three promissory notes as security, but failed to repay the debt despite repeated requests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional Subordinate Court in Tiruvannamalai ruled that the defendants must repay the plaintiff ₹3,82,480 plus interest of 12% per annum from the case filing date until judgment, and an additional 6% interest thereafter on the principal amount of ₹2,25,000. The court found that the defendants had borrowed ₹2,25,000 from the plaintiff on September 3, 2022, for family and wedding expenses, and provided three promissory notes as security, but failed to repay the debt despite repeated requests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Sub Court, Cheyyar All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case