Dhanalakshmi vs Thamizharasan — 67/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7.Rule1. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 30th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNTV060000722016
Filing Number
80/2016
Filing Date
12-04-2016
Registration No
67/2016
Registration Date
25-04-2016
Court
District Munsif Court, Mannargudi
Judge
1-District Munsif
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dhanalakshmi
Adv. Thiru.S.Senthmilselvan, B.A.,B.L.,
Respondent(s)
Thamizharasan
S
Silambarasan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 29-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 06-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 27-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 23-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: O.S. No. 67/2016 Court: District Munsif Court, Mannargudi Parties: Dhanalakshmi (Petitioner) vs. Thamizharasan and Silambarasan (Respondents) Decision (April 30, 2026): The court dismissed the petitioner's suit with costs. The court found that while the petitioner purchased agricultural land in September 2014 with proper sale deeds and registered the property in her name, she failed to prove that the 11 guntas of land currently in the respondents' possession belonged to her. The respondents legitimately purchased adjacent land from the original owner's heirs in September 2015, and the court determined the petitioner had no legal right to claim the respondents' portion as her own property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S. No. 67/2016 Court: District Munsif Court, Mannargudi Parties: Dhanalakshmi (Petitioner) vs. Thamizharasan and Silambarasan (Respondents) Decision (April 30, 2026): The court dismissed the petitioner's suit with costs. The court found that while the petitioner purchased agricultural land in September 2014 with proper sale deeds and registered the property in her name, she failed to prove that the 11 guntas of land currently in the respondents' possession belonged to her. The respondents legitimately purchased adjacent land from the original owner's heirs in September 2015, and the court determined the petitioner had no legal right to claim the respondents' portion as her own property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts