Subramani (Died) S/o Chellakutty(Legal Heir) vs Narasimman S/o Ellappan Advocate - A.Kalingan — 236/2023
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 25(b), 25(d). Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 02nd April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTM040005692023
Filing Number
562/2023
Filing Date
27-07-2023
Registration No
236/2023
Registration Date
31-07-2023
Court
Sub Court, Cheyyar
Judge
2-Additional Sub JudgeCheyyar
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Subramani (Died) S/o Chellakutty(Legal Heir)
Adv. Mr.A.V.Manigandan, B.Sc., L.L.B.,1.
Chinnaponnu W/o. Subramani (late)
Adv. Mr.A.V.Manigandan, B.Sc., L.L.B.,1.
Kuppan S/o. Subramani (late)
Adv. Mr.A.V.Manigandan, B.Sc., L.L.B.,1.
D. Saraswathi D/o. Daas (late)Represented by Guardian - Kuppan S/o. Subramani (late)
Adv. Mr.A.V.Manigandan, B.Sc., L.L.B.,1.
D. Dhinashi D/o. Daas (late)
Adv. Mr.A.V.Manigandan, B.Sc., L.L.B.,
Respondent(s)
Narasimman S/o Ellappan Advocate - A.Kalingan
Krishnasamy S/o Ellappan
Adv. A.Kalingan
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional Sub JudgeCheyyar
Disposed
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Amendment |
| 03-03-2026 | Amendment |
| 11-02-2026 | Amendment |
| 03-02-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS No. 236/2023 Court Decision: The court rejected the plaintiff's claims and granted decree in favor of the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish his case regarding the disputed 60 cents of land and the alleged incomplete consideration paid to the defendants' father. The court held that the defendants have rightful ownership and possession of the disputed property. Key Reasoning: The court determined that the plaintiff's testimony was inconsistent and unconvincing. While the plaintiff claimed he only paid 30 cents' consideration (not 60 cents as documented), he could not adequately explain the registered sale deed showing 60 cents transfer or justify his subsequent actions in attempting to recover the property. The court noted contradictions in the plaintiff's statements regarding the original partition, the deed's execution, and his prior conduct of filing complaints and later withdrawing them. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS No. 236/2023 Court Decision: The court rejected the plaintiff's claims and granted decree in favor of the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish his case regarding the disputed 60 cents of land and the alleged incomplete consideration paid to the defendants' father. The court held that the defendants have rightful ownership and possession of the disputed property. Key Reasoning: The court determined that the plaintiff's testimony was inconsistent and unconvincing. While the plaintiff claimed he only paid 30 cents' consideration (not 60 cents as documented), he could not adequately explain the registered sale deed showing 60 cents transfer or justify his subsequent actions in attempting to recover the property. The court noted contradictions in the plaintiff's statements regarding the original partition, the deed's execution, and his prior conduct of filing complaints and later withdrawing them. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts