Nirmala Nagarajan vs Janakiraman Advocate - S Anandhan — 108/2024
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 27(c). Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 18th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTM080001692024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
168/2024
Filing Date
20-11-2024
Registration No
108/2024
Registration Date
20-12-2024
Court
Principal District Munsif Court, Cheyyar
Judge
3-Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed without cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nirmala Nagarajan
Adv. S Anandhan
Respondent(s)
Janakiraman Advocate - S Anandhan
Ariudainambi
Devaki
Anandhi
Anbazhaki
Arivazhaki
Gowthamraj
Sub Registrar - II
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 12-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Principal District Munsif, Cheyyar granted the plaintiff's suit and directed the Sub-Registrar II to remove the erroneous "House site no. 9" entry from the encumbrance certificate in Document 123/2024. The court established that the plaintiff's property and the property attached in execution proceedings (belonging to Munusamy's heirs) are entirely different based on varying extents, boundaries, and survey numbers, with the first defendant admitting this distinction during cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Principal District Munsif, Cheyyar granted the plaintiff's suit and directed the Sub-Registrar II to remove the erroneous "House site no. 9" entry from the encumbrance certificate in Document 123/2024. The court established that the plaintiff's property and the property attached in execution proceedings (belonging to Munusamy's heirs) are entirely different based on varying extents, boundaries, and survey numbers, with the first defendant admitting this distinction during cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts