BALASUBRAMANIAM vs M.AROKIASAMY (DEAD) THR. LRS. — C.A. No. 2066/2012
Case under Section XII-B. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010110782010
Filing Date
07-Apr-2010
Registration No
C.A. No. 2066/2012
Diary Number
11078/2010
Order Date
02-Sep-2021
Document Type
Judgement - of Main Case
Neutral Citation
2021 INSC 438
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 04-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BALASUBRAMANIAM
Adv. NISHE RAJEN SHONKER
Respondent(s)
-
1.M.AROKIASAMY (DEAD) THR. LRS.
Adv. VIJAY KUMAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-Sep-2021
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Sep-2021
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Sep-2021
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna
-
07-Jul-2021
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Jul-2021
After Week/Month/Vacation
Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy
-
06-Jul-2021
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Jul-2021
After Week/Month/Vacation
Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy
-
09-Mar-2021
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Mar-2021
After Week/Month/Vacation
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose
-
18-Feb-2021
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Feb-2021
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Mar-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Mar-2015
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Mar-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Feb-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Sep-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Aug-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
29-Apr-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Sep-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Sep-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Apr-2010
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 2066/2012
-
[ 2021 INSC 438 ]
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
The Supreme Court dismissed Balasubramaniam's appeal seeking permanent injunction over disputed property, upholding the High Court's judgment. The Court found that while the trial court correctly concluded the plaintiff failed to prove exclusive possession, the first appellate court's reversal based solely on kist receipts was perverse; the High Court was justified in setting it aside given the divergent findings of the two lower courts and the defendant's documented ownership history and physical possession of the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts