S.Natarajan vs S.Selvaraj Advocate - LAKSHMI GANTHA C — 109/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section o7r1. Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNCB190006612021
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
Filing Number
562/2021
Filing Date
16-12-2021
Registration No
109/2021
Registration Date
16-12-2021
Court
Sub Court, Mettupalayam
Judge
2-Subordinate Judge, Mettupalayam
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
S.Natarajan
Adv. Santhamoorthy.R
Respondent(s)
S.Selvaraj Advocate - LAKSHMI GANTHA C
Doraisamy
Adv. Manivasagam.K
Ponnusamy
Adv. SIVAPPUGAZ.K.T
Kandasamy
Poovizhi.S
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Subordinate Judge, Mettupalayam
IA Pending
IA Pending
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | IA Pending |
| 11-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 11-02-2026 | Part Heard |
| 07-02-2026 | Part Heard |
| 04-02-2026 | Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Case No: O.S. 109/2021, Munsiff Court, Mettupalayam Date: December 13, 2023 Outcome: The court examined witness testimony regarding a property dispute involving six properties. The court found the third defendant's claim that he paid ₹10,000 for property 6 to be incorrect, and rejected several of his contentions regarding joint family property division, separate ownership claims, and the acquisition cost of the property. The court determined that property 6 constitutes a joint family asset incapable of partition and that the third defendant cannot claim individual ownership based on his government service contributions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Case No: O.S. 109/2021, Munsiff Court, Mettupalayam Date: December 13, 2023 Outcome: The court examined witness testimony regarding a property dispute involving six properties. The court found the third defendant's claim that he paid ₹10,000 for property 6 to be incorrect, and rejected several of his contentions regarding joint family property division, separate ownership claims, and the acquisition cost of the property. The court determined that property 6 constitutes a joint family asset incapable of partition and that the third defendant cannot claim individual ownership based on his government service contributions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts