Dhandapani @ Manoharan vs E.Rasheed — 34/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 41A. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 22nd April 2026.
AS - Appeal Suit
CNR: TNVP010048462024
Filing Number
713/2024
Filing Date
10-07-2024
Registration No
34/2024
Registration Date
10-07-2024
Court
Principal District Court, Viluppuram
Judge
18-Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court)
Decision Date
22nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dhandapani @ Manoharan
Adv. R.R.K.Senthil
M.Geetha
Gokulakrishan
Respondent(s)
E.Rasheed
M.Vivekanandan
R.Hiddayat
R.Shafee
R. Sharmila
Hearing History
Judge: 18-Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court)
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 16-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 01-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 24-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
CASE SUMMARY: 34/2024 Court: Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Villupuram Date: April 22, 2026 Decision The appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's judgment from October 22, 2013. The court found that the appellants (Dhandapani @ Manoharan, M. Geetha, and Gokulakrishan) failed to establish that the disputed property (Survey No. 278/13C) belonged to their predecessors or that they had inheritance rights. The court determined that the respondent (E. Rasheed, who acquired the property legitimately through a chain of valid sales) had superior ownership and possession rights, and rejected the appellants' claims to property ownership and relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY: 34/2024 Court: Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Villupuram Date: April 22, 2026 Decision The appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's judgment from October 22, 2013. The court found that the appellants (Dhandapani @ Manoharan, M. Geetha, and Gokulakrishan) failed to establish that the disputed property (Survey No. 278/13C) belonged to their predecessors or that they had inheritance rights. The court determined that the respondent (E. Rasheed, who acquired the property legitimately through a chain of valid sales) had superior ownership and possession rights, and rejected the appellants' claims to property ownership and relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts