Shanmugam vs Indhuerani Advocate - Thiru R.Jegadeesan — 3/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(A). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 15th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTS110014972019
Filing Number
184/2019
Filing Date
18-Nov-2019
Registration No
3/2020
Registration Date
23-Jan-2020
Court
District Munsif Court, Shengottah
Judge
1-District Munsif
Decision Date
15-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Last updated 20-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Shanmugam
Adv. Tr.K.Sailapathy Sivagyanam
Respondent(s)
-
1.Indhuerani Advocate - Thiru R.Jegadeesan
-
2.Mariammal
Adv. Thiru R. Jegadeesan
-
3.Appakkutti
Adv. Thiru R. Jegadeesan
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
15-Apr-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary: Shanmugam v. Indhurani (O.S. No. 3/2020) Court Decision: The District Munsif Court dismissed Shanmugam's suit seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession of a government-assigned property. The court found that defendants have been in continuous possession since 1998, the plaintiff failed to prove prior possession or dispossession within limitation period, and the suit was barred by res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC principles. Key Reasoning: Despite the plaintiff holding a 2011 sale deed, the court applied the preponderance of probabilities standard and found the defendants' version more credible. The plaintiff's failure to establish prior possession, contradictions in his evidence, and omission to seek recovery of possession in an earlier dismissed suit (O.S. No. 49/2013) were fatal defects. Section 27 of the Limitation Act operates to extinguish the plaintiff's title after twelve years of adverse possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Apr-2026
Disposed
District Munsif
-
09-Apr-2026
Judgement
District Munsif
-
06-Apr-2026
Judgement
District Munsif
-
30-Mar-2026
Enquiry
District Munsif
-
23-Mar-2026
Judgement
District Munsif
-
18-Mar-2026
Judgement
District Munsif
-
11-Mar-2026
Enquiry
District Munsif
-
10-Mar-2026
Judgement
District Munsif
-
27-Feb-2026
Judgement
District Munsif
-
25-Feb-2026
Arguments
District Munsif
-
19-Feb-2026
Arguments
District Munsif
-
18-Feb-2026
Arguments
District Munsif
-
17-Feb-2026
Arguments
District Munsif
-
16-Feb-2026
Arguments
-
04-Feb-2026
Arguments
-
07-Jan-2026
Arguments
-
04-Dec-2025
Evidence
-
06-Nov-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
06-Nov-2025
Evidence
-
30-Oct-2025
Evidence
-
09-Oct-2025
Evidence
-
18-Sep-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
18-Sep-2025
Evidence
-
04-Sep-2025
Evidence
-
13-Aug-2025
Evidence
-
17-Jul-2025
Evidence
-
03-Jul-2025
Evidence
-
18-Jun-2025
Evidence
-
17-Apr-2025
Evidence
-
27-Mar-2025
Evidence
-
27-Feb-2025
Evidence
-
12-Feb-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
12-Feb-2025
Evidence
-
09-Jan-2025
Evidence
-
04-Dec-2024
Trial
-
17-Oct-2024
Appearance
-
24-Jul-2024
Issues
-
05-Jun-2024
Issues
-
13-Mar-2024
Issues
-
11-Jan-2024
Issues
-
22-Nov-2023
Issues
-
13-Sep-2023
Issues
-
03-Aug-2023
Issues
-
21-Jun-2023
Issues
-
06-Apr-2023
Issues
-
06-Mar-2023
Issues
-
04-Jan-2023
Issues
-
23-Nov-2022
Issues
-
29-Sep-2022
Issues
-
27-Jul-2022
Issues
-
23-Jun-2022
Issues
-
24-Mar-2022
Issues
-
24-Feb-2022
Issues
-
19-Jan-2022
Issues
-
02-Dec-2021
Issues
-
20-Oct-2021
Issues
-
15-Sep-2021
Issues
-
18-Aug-2021
Issues
-
22-Jul-2021
Issues
-
17-Jun-2021
Issues
-
22-Apr-2021
Issues
-
04-Mar-2021
Issues
-
17-Feb-2021
Written Statement
-
06-Jan-2021
Written Statement
-
18-Nov-2020
Written Statement
-
24-Sep-2020
Written Statement
-
05-Aug-2020
Written Statement
-
25-Jun-2020
Written Statement
-
05-May-2020
Written Statement
-
16-Apr-2020
Written Statement
-
26-Feb-2020
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Nov-2019
Case filed
Registration No. 3/2020
Case Summary: Shanmugam v. Indhurani (O.S. No. 3/2020) Court Decision: The District Munsif Court dismissed Shanmugam's suit seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession of a government-assigned property. The court found that defendants have been in continuous possession since 1998, the plaintiff failed to prove prior possession or dispossession within limitation period, and the suit was barred by res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC principles. Key Reasoning: Despite the plaintiff holding a 2011 sale deed, the court applied the preponderance of probabilities standard and found the defendants' version more credible. The plaintiff's failure to establish prior possession, contradictions in his evidence, and omission to seek recovery of possession in an earlier dismissed suit (O.S. No. 49/2013) were fatal defects. Section 27 of the Limitation Act operates to extinguish the plaintiff's title after twelve years of adverse possession. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts