G.CHINNARAJAN vs A.J.DURAI (died) — 41/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(b). Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 26th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTR210000422018
Filing Number
42/2018
Filing Date
22-06-2018
Registration No
41/2018
Registration Date
22-06-2018
Court
District Munsif Court, Tiruttani
Judge
2-District Munsif
Decision Date
26th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed without cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
G.CHINNARAJAN
Adv. C.A. Natarajan
Respondent(s)
A.J.DURAI (died)
D. Vanitha
Adv. E. Shamu
D. Raja
Adv. E. Shamu
D. Prasanth
Adv. E. Shamu
D. Prabu
Adv. E. Shamu
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 04-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 25-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 18-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The District Munsif court at Tiruttani decreed the suit in favor of plaintiff G. Chinnarajan, declaring his right, title, and interest over the disputed property and granting permanent injunction against the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff validly purchased the property from Kannammal and two others via registered sale deed dated 20.10.1993, and his title and possession were conclusively proven through documentary evidence and the defendant's own admission of the plaintiff's construction on the property. The defendants' counterclaim that they held ancestral rights was rejected as they produced no supporting documentation, and their evidence was contradicted by their own witness's admissions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The District Munsif court at Tiruttani decreed the suit in favor of plaintiff G. Chinnarajan, declaring his right, title, and interest over the disputed property and granting permanent injunction against the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff validly purchased the property from Kannammal and two others via registered sale deed dated 20.10.1993, and his title and possession were conclusively proven through documentary evidence and the defendant's own admission of the plaintiff's construction on the property. The defendants' counterclaim that they held ancestral rights was rejected as they produced no supporting documentation, and their evidence was contradicted by their own witness's admissions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts