Alagammal vs Arumugasamy — 3/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section order21rule11(2). Disposed: Uncontested--CLOSED on 06th April 2026.
EP - Execution Petition
CNR: TNTS110017432025
e-Filing Number
01-07-2025
Filing Number
73/2025
Filing Date
02-Jul-2025
Registration No
3/2025
Registration Date
07-Jul-2025
Court
District Munsif Court, Shengottah
Judge
1-District Munsif
Decision Date
06-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--CLOSED
Last updated 20-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Alagammal
Adv. Azath Y
Respondent(s)
-
1.Arumugasamy
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-Apr-2026
Disposed
District Munsif
-
23-Mar-2026
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
18-Mar-2026
IA Pending
District Munsif
-
16-Feb-2026
IA Pending
-
06-Jan-2026
IA Pending
-
10-Dec-2025
IA Pending
-
16-Oct-2025
Orders
-
06-Oct-2025
Orders
-
26-Sep-2025
Orders
-
12-Sep-2025
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case 3/2025 - Alagammal v. Arumugasamy - Summary The District Munsif Court in Chengalpattu allowed Alagammal's execution petition seeking to remove Arumugasamy from a property document and secure her ownership rights. The court found that the respondent's counter-arguments (including claims of an appeal filed elsewhere and allegations of fraudulent conduct) were irrelevant to the execution proceedings, as those matters were not properly documented before the court. The court concluded that since property rights were already determined in the original judgment (Case 47/2018), no further examination was necessary in the execution petition, and therefore granted the petition as requested. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Sep-2025
Orders
-
10-Sep-2025
Orders
-
03-Sep-2025
Enquiry
-
20-Aug-2025
Counter
-
31-Jul-2025
Counter
-
07-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 3/2025
Case 3/2025 - Alagammal v. Arumugasamy - Summary The District Munsif Court in Chengalpattu allowed Alagammal's execution petition seeking to remove Arumugasamy from a property document and secure her ownership rights. The court found that the respondent's counter-arguments (including claims of an appeal filed elsewhere and allegations of fraudulent conduct) were irrelevant to the execution proceedings, as those matters were not properly documented before the court. The court concluded that since property rights were already determined in the original judgment (Case 47/2018), no further examination was necessary in the execution petition, and therefore granted the petition as requested. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts