Jayalakshmi @ Pappathi vs R. Sellamuthu Advocate - Subramaniam. C — 200230/2018
Case under --- Section 151. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNED010007632018
Next Hearing
01st June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
200230/2018
Filing Date
23-08-2018
Registration No
200230/2018
Registration Date
23-08-2018
Court
Principal District Court, Erode
Judge
2-I Additional District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jayalakshmi @ Pappathi
Adv. V.Sathiskumar
Respondent(s)
R. Sellamuthu Advocate - Subramaniam. C
M. Sellamuthu
Adv. P. Arunkumar
M. Viswanathan
Eswari
Hearing History
Judge: 2-I Additional District Judge
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 15-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 08-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 06-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 26-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
This is a Tamil language court order (O.S.No.230/2018) dated 12.3.2026 concerning a property dispute in Mallaiyandi village. The defendant (DW 1) contests the plaintiff's claim of ownership, asserting that only 20 cents of the disputed 97 cents of land were sold, with the remaining 97 cents being separately registered to another party, and that other individuals (Arumugan, Karupuswami, Thengraj, and Tamilselvan) hold legitimate ownership rights to portions of the property. The order reflects the defendant's detailed testimony disputing the plaintiff's exclusive ownership claim and asserting the rightful ownership of multiple parties over different portions of the disputed land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a Tamil language court order (O.S.No.230/2018) dated 12.3.2026 concerning a property dispute in Mallaiyandi village. The defendant (DW 1) contests the plaintiff's claim of ownership, asserting that only 20 cents of the disputed 97 cents of land were sold, with the remaining 97 cents being separately registered to another party, and that other individuals (Arumugan, Karupuswami, Thengraj, and Tamilselvan) hold legitimate ownership rights to portions of the property. The order reflects the defendant's detailed testimony disputing the plaintiff's exclusive ownership claim and asserting the rightful ownership of multiple parties over different portions of the disputed land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts