GIRIRAJA PRASANNA S vs RAJENDIRA PRASANNA S Advocate - MUNUSAMY K — 71/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 27(c). Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 16th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNVL230001162020
Filing Number
170/2020
Filing Date
01-10-2020
Registration No
71/2020
Registration Date
09-10-2020
Court
District Munsif Court, Katpadi
Judge
1-District Munsif,Katpadi
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed without cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GIRIRAJA PRASANNA S
Adv. BALAJI P G
Respondent(s)
RAJENDIRA PRASANNA S Advocate - MUNUSAMY K
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif,Katpadi
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Giriraja Prasanna v. Rajendira Prasanna (O.S. No. 71/2020) The District Munsif Court at Katpadi granted permanent injunction in favor of plaintiff Giriraja Prasanna, restraining defendant Rajendira Prasanna from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit property. The court found that the plaintiff established valid ownership through a documented chain of title: his father's 1952 purchase, a 1973 settlement deed favoring his mother, and a 2009 will bequeathing the property to the plaintiff. The defendant provided no documentary evidence to support his claim of an alleged oral partition or his father's possession, presented no witnesses, and made no exhibits. The court determined the defendant's interference was illegal and without lawful basis. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Giriraja Prasanna v. Rajendira Prasanna (O.S. No. 71/2020) The District Munsif Court at Katpadi granted permanent injunction in favor of plaintiff Giriraja Prasanna, restraining defendant Rajendira Prasanna from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit property. The court found that the plaintiff established valid ownership through a documented chain of title: his father's 1952 purchase, a 1973 settlement deed favoring his mother, and a 2009 will bequeathing the property to the plaintiff. The defendant provided no documentary evidence to support his claim of an alleged oral partition or his father's possession, presented no witnesses, and made no exhibits. The court determined the defendant's interference was illegal and without lawful basis. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts