Guruvammal vs seeniammal (Died) Advocate - M.Bojarajan — 163/2024

Case under Indian Stamp Act, 1899 Section 37(2). Disposed: Contested--Partially Allowed on 30th April 2026.

Case disposed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNVR250005282024

Filing Number

55/2024

Filing Date

24-Oct-2016

Registration No

163/2024

Registration Date

24-Oct-2016

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Watrap

Judge

1-District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

30-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Partially Allowed

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 Section 37(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Guruvammal

    Adv. S. Sankara Narayanan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.seeniammal (Died) Advocate - M.Bojarajan

  2. 2.S.P. Thangaraj

    Adv. M.Bojarajan (MA)

  3. 3.Lakshmi

  4. 4.Subbulakshmi

    Adv. M.Bojarajan (MA)

  5. 5.ponnumani

    Adv. M.Bojarajan (MA)

  6. 6.Navaneetha krishnan

    Adv. M.Bojarajan (MA)

  7. 7.Subbaih (Died)

  8. 8.R. Thiruppathi

  9. 9.Ramar

  10. 10.Roja Muthu

  11. 11.Chinnathai (Died )

  12. 12.Govindammal @ Perumal

  13. 13.Palraj

  14. 14.Murugan

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: Guruvammal v. Seeniyammal & Others (O.S. 163/2024) Court Decision: The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court partially decreed the suit. The plaintiff was granted a preliminary decree for an undivided 1/4th share in two schedule properties (items 2 and 3), but her claims regarding six other properties (items 1, 4-8) were dismissed for failure to establish title. Key Reasoning: The court rejected the defendants' plea of oral partition as unsupported by credible evidence, consistent with Supreme Court precedent requiring contemporaneous public documents. However, the plaintiff could only prove self-acquisition by her deceased father for items 2-3 through registered sale deeds; insufficient documentation existed for the remaining properties. The court also rejected limitations and ouster defenses, finding the plaintiff retained joint possession rights despite post-marriage severance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  4. 27-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  5. 27-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  6. 22-Apr-2026

    Orders

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  7. 17-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  8. 15-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  9. 06-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  10. 30-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  11. 18-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  12. 11-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  13. 25-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  14. 28-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  15. 05-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  16. 03-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  17. 24-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  18. 10-Nov-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  19. 05-Nov-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  20. 29-Oct-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  21. 27-Oct-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  22. 15-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  23. 08-Oct-2025

    Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF

  24. 08-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  25. 06-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  26. 15-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  27. 10-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  28. 01-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  29. 09-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  30. 28-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  31. 14-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  32. 02-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  33. 23-Jun-2025

    Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF

  34. 23-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  35. 04-Jun-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  36. 23-Apr-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  37. 03-Mar-2025

    Written Statement

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  38. 08-Jan-2025

    Written Statement

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  39. 25-Nov-2024

    Written Statement

    District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate

  40. 17-Oct-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  41. 24-Oct-2016

    Case filed

    Registration No. 163/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Guruvammal v. Seeniyammal & Others (O.S. 163/2024) Court Decision: The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court partially decreed the suit. The plaintiff was granted a preliminary decree for an undivided 1/4th share in two schedule properties (items 2 and 3), but her claims regarding six other properties (items 1, 4-8) were dismissed for failure to establish title. Key Reasoning: The court rejected the defendants' plea of oral partition as unsupported by credible evidence, consistent with Supreme Court precedent requiring contemporaneous public documents. However, the plaintiff could only prove self-acquisition by her deceased father for items 2-3 through registered sale deeds; insufficient documentation existed for the remaining properties. The court also rejected limitations and ouster defenses, finding the plaintiff retained joint possession rights despite post-marriage severance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case