JEYAPACKIYAM vs RAJENDRAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. — C.A. No. 8668/2013

Case under Civil Law : Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Matters Arising Out of Suit for Specific Performance, Declaration, Injunction, Possession or Cancellation of Deeds/documents Section XII-B. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010122612012

Filing Date

09-Apr-2012

Registration No

C.A. No. 8668/2013

Diary Number

12261/2012

Order Date

30-Jul-2025

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Disposed Off

Last updated 06-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Civil Law : Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Specific Relief Act, 1963 – matters arising out of suit for specific performance, declaration, injunction, possession or cancellation of deeds/documents Section XII-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JEYAPACKIYAM

    Adv. R. CHANDRACHUD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAJENDRAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

    Adv. S. GOWTHAMAN S. GOWTHAMAN[R-1.1] S. GOWTHAMAN[R-1.3]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Jul-2025

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 30-Jul-2025

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta

  4. 25-Feb-2021

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 25-Feb-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 04-Sep-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 04-Sep-2015

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 04-Sep-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 23-Sep-2013

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 23-Sep-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 04-Jul-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 07-Jan-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 15-Oct-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 03-Jul-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 09-Apr-2012

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 8668/2013

View Full Judgment
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C.A. No. 008668/2013 (Jeyapackiyam v. Rajendran) Outcome: The Supreme Court abated the Civil Appeal on 30th July 2025 after counsel informed the court that the sole appellant, Jeyapackiyam, had expired in the previous year. Next Steps: The court clarified that abatement does not preclude the appellant's legal representatives from filing necessary applications to be brought on record to continue the proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts District Courts
Search Another Case