Arunachala Nadar vs Shanmuga Nadar — SA(MD)/294/2026

Case under U/s 100 of C.p.c Section 100. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HCMD010803312026

Filing Number

SA(MD)/48752/2026

Filing Date

17-Jun-2026

Registration No

SA(MD)/294/2026

Registration Date

17-Jun-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr Justice P.B. Balaji

Coram

Honourable Mr Justice P.B. Balaji

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Suits ( 149 )

Sub-Category

Mandatory Injunction ( 15 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Last updated 21-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

U/s 100 of C.p.c Section 100

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Arunachala Nadar

    Adv. G.SRIDHARAN,R.HARICUMARAN,R.HARICUMARAN, M.ASHOK GANESH,R.HARICUMARAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Shanmuga Nadar

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 19-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice P.B. BalajiView PDF

    SA(MD) 294/2026 Summary: The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court admitted Arunachala Nadar's Second Appeal on 19-06-2026, challenging the lower courts' dismissal of his property dispute against Shanmuga Nadar. The appeal raises two substantial questions: whether Nadar is entitled to a decree regarding property S.No.966/38 despite the defendant's admission, and whether the non-suiting based on non-joinder of necessary parties was legally proper. Notice issued to respondent returnable in 6 weeks; case adjourned for further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Jun-2026

    For Admission

    Honourable Mr Justice P.B. Balaji

  4. 17-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. SA(MD)/294/2026

casestatus.in Summary

SA(MD) 294/2026 Summary: The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court admitted Arunachala Nadar's Second Appeal on 19-06-2026, challenging the lower courts' dismissal of his property dispute against Shanmuga Nadar. The appeal raises two substantial questions: whether Nadar is entitled to a decree regarding property S.No.966/38 despite the defendant's admission, and whether the non-suiting based on non-joinder of necessary parties was legally proper. Notice issued to respondent returnable in 6 weeks; case adjourned for further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case