MUNIRATHINAM vs GOVINDASAMY Advocate - RAJINI K — 112/2017
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 27(C). Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 22nd April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNVL100001922017
Filing Number
192/2017
Filing Date
19-08-2017
Registration No
112/2017
Registration Date
19-08-2017
Court
District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham
Judge
2-District Munsif, Gudiyatham
Decision Date
22nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed without cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MUNIRATHINAM
Adv. LOGANATHAN K
Respondent(s)
GOVINDASAMY Advocate - RAJINI K
SUNDARAM
Adv. RAJINI K
KANDHAMMAL
Adv. RAJINI K
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif, Gudiyatham
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 08-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 27-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Munirathinam v. Govindasamy (O.S. No. 112/2017) The District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam, decreed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction and restrained the 2nd defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the suit property. The court found the plaintiff had validly purchased the property from Seenan (also known as Srinivasan) via registered sale deed dated 24.11.2008, with revenue records subsequently transferred to his name. The defendants' counterclaim that they were 2nd class legal heirs failed as they could not prove the alleged owner died unmarried or establish superior title. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Munirathinam v. Govindasamy (O.S. No. 112/2017) The District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam, decreed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction and restrained the 2nd defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the suit property. The court found the plaintiff had validly purchased the property from Seenan (also known as Srinivasan) via registered sale deed dated 24.11.2008, with revenue records subsequently transferred to his name. The defendants' counterclaim that they were 2nd class legal heirs failed as they could not prove the alleged owner died unmarried or establish superior title. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts