V. Rupa vs V. Elangovan and Others — 93/2021

Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section Sec 27 c, 37(2). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNDG070002952021

Arguments

Next Hearing

04th June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

335/2021

Filing Date

04-03-2021

Registration No

93/2021

Registration Date

04-03-2021

Court

Sub Court, Palani

Judge

1-Principal Sub Judge

Acts & Sections

COURT FEES ACT, 1870 Section Sec 27 c, 37(2)
IA/1/2023 Classification : 151 Petition Section V. RupaV. Elangovan and Others
IA/2/2024 Classification : OS Section V. Elangovan and OthersV. Rupa

Petitioner(s)

V. Rupa

Adv. P. Nagulsamy

Respondent(s)

V. Elangovan and Others

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal Sub Judge

09-04-2026

Arguments

12-03-2026

Arguments

18-02-2026

Arguments

29-01-2026

Arguments

07-01-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

08-02-2023
Bail
25-07-2023
Bail
30-08-2023
Bail
05-09-2023
Bail
07-03-2024
Bail
13-11-2024
Copy of Order
13-11-2024
Copy of Order
12-11-2025
Copy of Deposition

Case Summary O.S. No. 93/2021 | District Court, Palani | Date: 12-11-2025 The witness was recalled and cross-examined by the plaintiff's counsel. During cross-examination, the witness testified regarding property rights, admitting that both the plaintiff and first defendant have rights to the property, while the second defendant (as Rajamani's heir) does not. The witness further clarified that the plaintiff received ₹3.5 lakh from the first defendant but no document was issued, and recanted his earlier statement by testifying that he falsely stated the plaintiff gave a document to the first defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary O.S. No. 93/2021 | District Court, Palani | Date: 12-11-2025 The witness was recalled and cross-examined by the plaintiff's counsel. During cross-examination, the witness testified regarding property rights, admitting that both the plaintiff and first defendant have rights to the property, while the second defendant (as Rajamani's heir) does not. The witness further clarified that the plaintiff received ₹3.5 lakh from the first defendant but no document was issued, and recanted his earlier statement by testifying that he falsely stated the plaintiff gave a document to the first defendant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Sub Court, Palani All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case