GOPAL R vs RAJI GOUNDER (DIED) — 215/2015
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 25dAND372OFCFACT. Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 13th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNVL100003282015
Filing Number
1174/2015
Filing Date
03-09-2015
Registration No
215/2015
Registration Date
03-09-2015
Court
District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham
Judge
2-District Munsif, Gudiyatham
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed without cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GOPAL R
Adv. BOOPATHI K M
Respondent(s)
RAJI GOUNDER (DIED)
GOVINDASAMY R
Adv. MOGANARAJU K
VENKATESAN R
SALAMMAL
KASTHURI
VALLIAMMAL
Adv. JAGADEESAN M V
JAYAPRAKASH
Adv. JAGADEESAN MV
SIVAGAMI
Adv. JAGADEESAN M V
KUBENDIRAN
Adv. JAGADEESAN M V
SHYAMALA
Adv. JAGADEESAN M V
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif, Gudiyatham
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 04-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 02-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 27-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The District Munsif Court in Gudiyattam partially decreed R. Gopal's partition suit against multiple defendants on March 13, 2026, ordering that the Schedule B property be divided into 20 equal shares with 6 shares allotted to the plaintiff. The court directed delivery of separate possession to the plaintiff within two months, but dismissed the plaintiff's claim for consequential permanent injunction and directed him to bear the suit costs considering the family relationship involved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The District Munsif Court in Gudiyattam partially decreed R. Gopal's partition suit against multiple defendants on March 13, 2026, ordering that the Schedule B property be divided into 20 equal shares with 6 shares allotted to the plaintiff. The court directed delivery of separate possession to the plaintiff within two months, but dismissed the plaintiff's claim for consequential permanent injunction and directed him to bear the suit costs considering the family relationship involved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts