Bama vs Saraswathi and others — 137/2024
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section O 7 R 1 2. Disposed: Contested--Partially Allowed on 25th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTV150004412024
Filing Number
155/2024
Filing Date
22-08-2024
Registration No
137/2024
Registration Date
22-08-2024
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal
Judge
1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Partially Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bama
Adv. Thiru. Pandithennavan
Respondent(s)
Saraswathi and others
Prabakaran
The Village Administrative Officer
Revenue Officer
Sub Registrar
The Collector
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 02-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 23-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The District Munsif Court partially decreed the suit, granting a permanent injunction restraining defendants from trespassing on or interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The court found the plaintiff had established lawful possession based on a 2013 sale agreement and continuous occupation since then, supported by property tax receipts and witness testimony. However, the court rejected the plaintiff's request for an injunction preventing the sale of the property based on an alleged fraudulent settlement deed, as no cloud had been created over the plaintiff's title. Each party bears their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The District Munsif Court partially decreed the suit, granting a permanent injunction restraining defendants from trespassing on or interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The court found the plaintiff had established lawful possession based on a 2013 sale agreement and continuous occupation since then, supported by property tax receipts and witness testimony. However, the court rejected the plaintiff's request for an injunction preventing the sale of the property based on an alleged fraudulent settlement deed, as no cloud had been created over the plaintiff's title. Each party bears their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts