M. Jeyaraman vs S. Sekar — 26/2011

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 42. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 23rd March 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNTV060000882011

Case disposed

Filing Number

26/2011

Filing Date

29-04-2011

Registration No

26/2011

Registration Date

29-04-2011

Court

District Munsif Court, Mannargudi

Judge

1-District Munsif

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 42

Petitioner(s)

M. Jeyaraman

Respondent(s)

S. Sekar

Banumathi

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Munsif

23-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

Judgement

11-03-2026

Arguments

06-03-2026

Evidence

04-03-2026

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

23-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of a 2001 sale agreement regarding agricultural land. The judge found that the agreement, though evidenced by documents and testimony, was barred by the Limitation Act due to the nine-year delay in filing (the claim should have been brought within three years). Additionally, the court determined the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to complete the transaction, as the remaining payment of ₹600 was never made within the stipulated one-year period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

04-04-2025
Deposition
14-08-2025
Deposition
19-08-2025
Deposition
06-10-2025
Deposition
03-11-2025
Deposition
25-11-2025
Deposition
23-01-2026
Deposition
23-01-2026
Deposition
02-02-2026
Deposition
04-02-2026
Deposition
11-02-2026
Deposition
23-02-2026
Deposition
04-03-2026
Deposition
casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of a 2001 sale agreement regarding agricultural land. The judge found that the agreement, though evidenced by documents and testimony, was barred by the Limitation Act due to the nine-year delay in filing (the claim should have been brought within three years). Additionally, the court determined the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to complete the transaction, as the remaining payment of ₹600 was never made within the stipulated one-year period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District Munsif Court, Mannargudi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case