G.Aruljothi vs T.Jayaraman and 5 others — 39/2023

Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 52. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 27th April 2026.

Case disposed

AS - Appeal Suit

CNR: TNTR010062732023

Filing Number

2097/2023

Filing Date

21-Aug-2023

Registration No

39/2023

Registration Date

05-Sep-2023

Court

Principal District Court, Tiruvallur

Judge

3-I Additional District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

27-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 52

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.G.Aruljothi

    Adv. K.Sivakumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.T.Jayaraman and 5 others

  2. 2.T. Rathinam

  3. 3.T. Ayilu

  4. 4.The District Collector,

  5. 5.The Tahsildar

  6. 6.The Sub-Registrar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: G. Aruljothi v. T. Jayaraman and Others (A.S. No. 39/2023) Court's Decision The appellate court dismissed both the plaintiff's appeal and the defendants' cross-appeal, confirming the trial court's dismissal of the original suit on grounds of limitation. While the plaintiff established original title via a 1972 settlement deed, she failed to file the suit within the prescribed limitation period and could not prove possession of the property. Key Findings Plaintiff's Title: Established and admitted—the registered settlement deed dated 06.12.1972 conclusively proved the plaintiff's original ownership. Limitation Bar: The suit filed in 2016 was time-barred. The plaintiff had knowledge of the defendants' adverse claim (patta transfer and partition deed) as early as 2010 when she approached revenue authorities. A registered partition deed of 2010 carried constructive notice, and the plaintiff's claim of learning about it only in 2015 was unconvincing. Possession: The plaintiff failed to prove she possessed the property or was dispossessed within twelve years before suit filing. Her unsubstantiated oral claim of permissive occupation (2004-2008) lacked documentary evidence. Defendants' Claims: Neither the alleged 1982 unregistered sale letter nor adverse possession was established in accordance with law. The defendants' inconsistent alternative pleas undermined their credibility. Damages & Injunctions: Rejected for lack of proof and procedural grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  4. 10-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  5. 08-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  6. 06-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  7. 02-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  8. 27-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  9. 18-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  10. 12-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  11. 03-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  12. 24-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  13. 02-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  14. 17-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  15. 26-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  16. 13-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  17. 23-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  18. 23-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  19. 19-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  20. 10-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  21. 16-Apr-2025

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  22. 11-Mar-2025

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  23. 07-Jan-2025

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  24. 19-Oct-2024

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  25. 17-Sep-2024

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  26. 27-Aug-2024

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  27. 12-Jun-2024

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  28. 04-Apr-2024

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  29. 27-Mar-2024

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  30. 09-Feb-2024

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  31. 19-Jan-2024

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  32. 21-Dec-2023

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  33. 23-Nov-2023

    Arguments

    I Additional District and Sessions Judge

  34. 05-Sep-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  35. 21-Aug-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 39/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: G. Aruljothi v. T. Jayaraman and Others (A.S. No. 39/2023) Court's Decision The appellate court dismissed both the plaintiff's appeal and the defendants' cross-appeal, confirming the trial court's dismissal of the original suit on grounds of limitation. While the plaintiff established original title via a 1972 settlement deed, she failed to file the suit within the prescribed limitation period and could not prove possession of the property. Key Findings Plaintiff's Title: Established and admitted—the registered settlement deed dated 06.12.1972 conclusively proved the plaintiff's original ownership. Limitation Bar: The suit filed in 2016 was time-barred. The plaintiff had knowledge of the defendants' adverse claim (patta transfer and partition deed) as early as 2010 when she approached revenue authorities. A registered partition deed of 2010 carried constructive notice, and the plaintiff's claim of learning about it only in 2015 was unconvincing. Possession: The plaintiff failed to prove she possessed the property or was dispossessed within twelve years before suit filing. Her unsubstantiated oral claim of permissive occupation (2004-2008) lacked documentary evidence. Defendants' Claims: Neither the alleged 1982 unregistered sale letter nor adverse possession was established in accordance with law. The defendants' inconsistent alternative pleas undermined their credibility. Damages & Injunctions: Rejected for lack of proof and procedural grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case