D.Nandagopal Rao vs Sri Chamundi Leather and another — 30/2023
Case under Rentrecoveryact Section 10(2). Status: Enquiry. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
RCOP - Rent Control Original Peition
CNR: TNCG100034102023
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
Filing Number
908/2023
Filing Date
07-12-2016
Registration No
30/2023
Registration Date
07-12-2016
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pallavaram
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
D.Nandagopal Rao
Adv. Kosalaraman M
Respondent(s)
Sri Chamundi Leather and another
A.Kumar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pallavaram
Enquiry
Enquiry
Enquiry
Enquiry
Enquiry
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-06-2026 | Enquiry |
| 22-04-2026 | Enquiry |
| 06-04-2026 | Enquiry |
| 24-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 16-03-2026 | Enquiry |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 30/2023 This is a property dispute case heard before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate in Pallavaram (Tamil Nadu). Petitioner D. Nandagopal Rao disputed ownership and possession rights over a property measuring 4,960 square feet (plots 35-36), claiming he had paid maintenance for 12 years and sought eviction of the respondent. The court examined competing claims regarding maintenance agreements, property transfer documents, and three separate revenue case filings by different parties. The court found insufficient evidence supporting the petitioner's claims of exclusive rights and rejected arguments that maintenance payments established ownership or that maintenance agreements existed. The case involved examination of property records and conflicting revenue department filings but the judgment does not grant relief to the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 30/2023 This is a property dispute case heard before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate in Pallavaram (Tamil Nadu). Petitioner D. Nandagopal Rao disputed ownership and possession rights over a property measuring 4,960 square feet (plots 35-36), claiming he had paid maintenance for 12 years and sought eviction of the respondent. The court examined competing claims regarding maintenance agreements, property transfer documents, and three separate revenue case filings by different parties. The court found insufficient evidence supporting the petitioner's claims of exclusive rights and rejected arguments that maintenance payments established ownership or that maintenance agreements existed. The case involved examination of property records and conflicting revenue department filings but the judgment does not grant relief to the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts