Baskaran vs Karthikeyan and 3 others — 65/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7, Rule1. Disposed: Contested--Decreed with cost on 29th April 2026.

Case disposed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNTV140001842025

Filing Number

196/2025

Filing Date

16-Sep-2025

Registration No

65/2025

Registration Date

16-Sep-2025

Court

SubCourt, Thiruthuraipoondi

Judge

4-Subordinate Judge

Decision Date

29-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Decreed with cost

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7, Rule1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Baskaran

    Adv. Mr.P.Sasikumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Karthikeyan and 3 others

  2. 2.Mahalakshmi

  3. 3.Vijayalakshmi

  4. 4.Sub-Register

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 29-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary of Case 65/2025: Baskaran v. Karthikeyan & Others Court Decision: The court ruled in favor of Baskaran (petitioner), declaring that the disputed property belongs to him and ordering the respondents to execute a corrective document to correct a typographical error in the original deed where survey number 211/1B2 was incorrectly recorded as 209/23. Key Reasoning: The court found that a 2001 gift deed from Baskaran's father-in-law clearly identified the property by its correct survey number and boundaries. Government revenue records and land surveyor reports confirmed the correct survey number. The error was a mere clerical mistake in transcription, not affecting ownership rights, as the property description, dimensions, and boundaries in the original deed were accurate and consistent with revenue records. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Subordinate Judge

  4. 27-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Subordinate Judge

  5. 22-Apr-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  6. 22-Apr-2026

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Subordinate Judge

  7. 10-Apr-2026

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Subordinate Judge

  8. 27-Mar-2026

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Subordinate Judge

  9. 13-Mar-2026

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Subordinate Judge

  10. 11-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Subordinate Judge

  11. 04-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Subordinate Judge

  12. 26-Feb-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  13. 26-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Subordinate Judge

  14. 07-Feb-2026

    Trial

    Subordinate Judge

  15. 28-Jan-2026

    Issues

    Subordinate Judge

  16. 06-Jan-2026

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Subordinate Judge

  17. 10-Dec-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Subordinate Judge

  18. 02-Dec-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Subordinate Judge

  19. 17-Nov-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Subordinate Judge

  20. 03-Nov-2025

    Issue of Service

    Subordinate Judge

  21. 16-Oct-2025

    Issue of Service

    Subordinate Judge

  22. 16-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 16-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 65/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 65/2025: Baskaran v. Karthikeyan & Others Court Decision: The court ruled in favor of Baskaran (petitioner), declaring that the disputed property belongs to him and ordering the respondents to execute a corrective document to correct a typographical error in the original deed where survey number 211/1B2 was incorrectly recorded as 209/23. Key Reasoning: The court found that a 2001 gift deed from Baskaran's father-in-law clearly identified the property by its correct survey number and boundaries. Government revenue records and land surveyor reports confirmed the correct survey number. The error was a mere clerical mistake in transcription, not affecting ownership rights, as the property description, dimensions, and boundaries in the original deed were accurate and consistent with revenue records. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case