MEENA vs MADASAMY AND ANOTHER Advocate - SHANMUGIAH.K — 100013/2014

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 05th March 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNTS070001112014

Case disposed

Filing Number

100013/2014

Filing Date

22-01-2014

Registration No

100013/2014

Registration Date

22-01-2014

Court

Sub Court, Sankarankovil

Judge

1-Sub Judge

Decision Date

05th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 151

Petitioner(s)

MEENA

Adv. RAVISANKAR.A

Respondent(s)

MADASAMY AND ANOTHER Advocate - SHANMUGIAH.K

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Sub Judge

05-03-2026

Disposed

27-02-2026

Judgement

09-02-2026

Judgement

05-02-2026

Arguments

02-02-2026

Arguments

Interim Orders

09-01-2026
Copy of Deposition

Case Summary Case: O.S. No. 13/2014 | Date: 09.01.2026 | Court: Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil The court rejected the defendant's claims regarding property ownership and title. The defendant failed to produce original documents and contradicted himself on critical issues such as the property's boundaries, the chain of ownership, and when he obtained the deed. The court found his testimony unreliable, particularly regarding discrepancies between successive deeds and his inconsistent statements about the property's features and demarcation, ultimately ruling against him and granting relief to the plaintiff as claimed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Case: O.S. No. 13/2014 | Date: 09.01.2026 | Court: Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil The court rejected the defendant's claims regarding property ownership and title. The defendant failed to produce original documents and contradicted himself on critical issues such as the property's boundaries, the chain of ownership, and when he obtained the deed. The court found his testimony unreliable, particularly regarding discrepancies between successive deeds and his inconsistent statements about the property's features and demarcation, ultimately ruling against him and granting relief to the plaintiff as claimed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Sub Court, Sankarankovil All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case