Ramadass vs Selvaraj — 14/2017

Case under --- Section 27(c). Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 26th March 2026.

Case disposed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNVP350000562025

Filing Number

56/2025

Filing Date

05-Apr-2017

Registration No

14/2017

Registration Date

05-Apr-2017

Court

District Munsif Court, Vanur

Judge

2-District Munsif Vanur

Decision Date

26-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Decreed without cost

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

--- Section 27(c)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ramadass

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Selvaraj

  2. 2.Sargunam

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    The District Munsif of Vanur ruled in favor of Ramadass, declaring that he possesses an easement right to access his property (Schedule A) through the defendants' property (Schedule B), which serves as the only available pathway. The court found that although the 2006 partition deed between the parties did not explicitly mention the pathway agreement, an advocate commissioner's inspection confirmed that Schedule A property could only be accessed via Schedule B, and the defendants failed to prove any alternative route existed. The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with Ramadass's use of Schedule B as a means of access. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Munsif Vanur

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    District Munsif Vanur

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif Vanur

  6. 10-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif Vanur

  7. 04-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif Vanur

  8. 02-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif Vanur

  9. 20-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif Vanur

  10. 17-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif Vanur

  11. 09-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  12. 04-Feb-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  13. 04-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  14. 27-Jan-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  15. 27-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  16. 19-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  17. 03-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  18. 09-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  19. 04-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  20. 25-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  21. 21-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  22. 14-Nov-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  23. 14-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  24. 05-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  25. 29-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  26. 15-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  27. 24-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  28. 17-Sep-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  29. 17-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  30. 11-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  31. 01-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  32. 25-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  33. 20-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  34. 13-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  35. 04-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  36. 21-Jul-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif Vanur

  37. 15-Jul-2025

    IA Pending

    District Munsif Vanur

  38. 08-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  39. 30-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  40. 20-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  41. 12-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  42. 04-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Vanur

  43. 09-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  44. 05-Apr-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. 14/2017

casestatus.in Summary

The District Munsif of Vanur ruled in favor of Ramadass, declaring that he possesses an easement right to access his property (Schedule A) through the defendants' property (Schedule B), which serves as the only available pathway. The court found that although the 2006 partition deed between the parties did not explicitly mention the pathway agreement, an advocate commissioner's inspection confirmed that Schedule A property could only be accessed via Schedule B, and the defendants failed to prove any alternative route existed. The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with Ramadass's use of Schedule B as a means of access. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case