P.Palaniammal and 3 others vs M.Palanisamy and 3 others — 157/2022

Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 37(2). Status: Additional Written Statement. Next hearing: 27th April 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNED050003572022

Additional Written Statement

Next Hearing

27th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

378/2022

Filing Date

28-07-2022

Registration No

157/2022

Registration Date

28-07-2022

Court

Sub Court, Sathyamangalam

Judge

1-Subordinate Judge

Acts & Sections

CodeofCivilProcedure Section 37(2)

Petitioner(s)

P.Palaniammal and 3 others

Adv. P.Thatchinamurthy

A.Valliammal

V.Selvi

E.Rasathi

Respondent(s)

M.Palanisamy and 3 others

P.Saravanakumar

V.Suseela

V.Pushpalatha

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge

10-03-2026

Additional Written Statement

02-02-2026

Issues

19-01-2026

Issues

12-01-2026

Issues

03-12-2025

Issues

Interim Orders

17-11-2025
Copy of Judgment

Court Order Summary Case: I.A.No.3/2023 in O.S.No.157 of 2022 | Subordinate Court, Sathyamangalam | Date: 17 November 2025 Outcome: Petition ALLOWED. The court ordered the impleadment of proposed respondents 5 and 6 (Kanagaraj and Rangasamy) as necessary parties to the main partition suit under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The plaintiffs challenged property alienations made during the dispute, and the court found that respondents 5 and 6, who claim derivative title through registered sale deeds, must participate to enable effective and complete adjudication and avoid multiplicity of litigation. The plaint shall be amended accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Order Summary Case: I.A.No.3/2023 in O.S.No.157 of 2022 | Subordinate Court, Sathyamangalam | Date: 17 November 2025 Outcome: Petition ALLOWED. The court ordered the impleadment of proposed respondents 5 and 6 (Kanagaraj and Rangasamy) as necessary parties to the main partition suit under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The plaintiffs challenged property alienations made during the dispute, and the court found that respondents 5 and 6, who claim derivative title through registered sale deeds, must participate to enable effective and complete adjudication and avoid multiplicity of litigation. The plaint shall be amended accordingly. 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, Sathyamangalam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case