Mrs. P. Usha Rani AND 3 OTHERS M/S.ANISH GOPI, L.SARATH PANDIAN(2485/ vs Mr. P.S Saravanan — OA/431/2026

Case under Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 Section 1. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HCMA013116082025

Filing Number

OA/209531/2025

Filing Date

16-Dec-2025

Registration No

OA/431/2026

Registration Date

30-Apr-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

Coram

Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Suits ( 149 )

Sub-Category

Partition ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

ORIGINALSECTION

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Mrs. P. Usha Rani AND 3 OTHERS M/S.ANISH GOPI, L.SARATH PANDIAN(2485/

  2. 2.,C.DIVAKAR(1297/

  3. 3.,MOB-

  4. 4.Mr.P.P.Jai Ganesh

  5. 5.Mrs.G.Shanthalakshmi

  6. 6.Mr.P.S.Panchatcharam

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Mr. P.S Saravanan

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 04-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh BabuView PDF

    Case Summary: OA No. 431/2026 The Madras High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Mrs. P. Usha Rani and three others against Mr. P.S. Saravanan on 04-06-2026. The applicants sought protection over jointly-owned property, alleging the respondent was attempting unauthorized dealings that would harm their co-ownership rights. The court found a prima facie case for injunction and ordered the respondent be restrained from dealing with the property. The case is listed for hearing after four weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-Jun-2026

    Motion Cases

    Honourable Mr.Justice K.kumaresh Babu

  4. 16-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. OA/431/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: OA No. 431/2026 The Madras High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Mrs. P. Usha Rani and three others against Mr. P.S. Saravanan on 04-06-2026. The applicants sought protection over jointly-owned property, alleging the respondent was attempting unauthorized dealings that would harm their co-ownership rights. The court found a prima facie case for injunction and ordered the respondent be restrained from dealing with the property. The case is listed for hearing after four weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case