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

Case disposed

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

CodeofCivilProcedure Section O 7 R 1 2

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

25-03-2026

Disposed

16-03-2026

Judgement

12-03-2026

Arguments

02-03-2026

Arguments

23-02-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

25-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

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

17-11-2025
Deposition
21-11-2025
Deposition
04-02-2026
Deposition
11-02-2026
Deposition
casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case