Vellaiammal vs Thirumoorthy — 97/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(b). Status: Part Heard. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.

Part Heard Next hearing 25-Jun-2026

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNDG080001232024

Filing Number

122/2024

Filing Date

18-Oct-2024

Registration No

97/2024

Registration Date

18-Oct-2024

Court

District Munsif Court, Palani

Judge

2-District Munsif

Last updated 17-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(b)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Vellaiammal

    Adv. Govinthavasagam

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Thirumoorthy

Case History

  1. 25-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Part Heard

    District Munsif

  3. 01-Jun-2026

    Part Heard

    District Munsif

  4. 08-Apr-2026

    Part Heard

    District Munsif

  5. 06-Apr-2026

    Part Heard

    District Munsif

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    District Munsif

  7. 07-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    District Munsif

  8. 25-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    District Munsif

  9. 24-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    District Munsif

  10. 17-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  11. 05-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  12. 09-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  13. 11-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  14. 27-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  15. 14-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  16. 03-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  17. 27-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  18. 08-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  19. 16-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  20. 26-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  21. 06-Aug-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    This is a civil suit (O.S. No. 97/2024) from the District Munsif Court, Palani, heard on 06.08.2025. The case involves a property dispute where petitioner Vellaiammal claims ownership of a house against respondent Thirumoorthy. The court record documents cross-examination testimony regarding the property (25 ft × 40 ft, Patna No. 165/1), its 10-year rental history, and competing claims of ownership. The judgment concludes that the petitioner has failed to establish her case with sufficient evidence; therefore, the suit is dismissed and the respondent retains his rights to the property. No further cross-examination was permitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  22. 06-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  23. 17-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  24. 10-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  25. 30-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  26. 12-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  27. 17-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  28. 07-Apr-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  29. 07-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  30. 02-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  31. 14-Mar-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  32. 14-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  33. 14-Feb-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif

  34. 31-Jan-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif

  35. 20-Jan-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif

  36. 13-Jan-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif

  37. 13-Dec-2024

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    District Munsif

  38. 06-Dec-2024

    Batta

    District Munsif

  39. 29-Nov-2024

    Batta

    District Munsif

  40. 20-Nov-2024

    Batta

    District Munsif

  41. 18-Oct-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  42. 18-Oct-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 97/2024

casestatus.in Summary

This is a civil suit (O.S. No. 97/2024) from the District Munsif Court, Palani, heard on 06.08.2025. The case involves a property dispute where petitioner Vellaiammal claims ownership of a house against respondent Thirumoorthy. The court record documents cross-examination testimony regarding the property (25 ft × 40 ft, Patna No. 165/1), its 10-year rental history, and competing claims of ownership. The judgment concludes that the petitioner has failed to establish her case with sufficient evidence; therefore, the suit is dismissed and the respondent retains his rights to the property. No further cross-examination was permitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case