Nirmala vs Rasu and 9 others — 42/2024
Case under Suitsvaluationact Section 25(d),27(c). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNED060000372024
Next Hearing
04th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
43/2024
Filing Date
28-02-2024
Registration No
42/2024
Registration Date
01-03-2024
Court
District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam
Judge
2-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nirmala
Adv. M.Senniappan
Respondent(s)
Rasu and 9 others
Kamala
K.K.kaliappan
Rajendran
Raja
Srirangan
The VAO officer
The Revenue Inspector
The dashildar
Its Representative District Collector for the Government of Tamil Nadu.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 06-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 23-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 03-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
This is a civil property dispute case (OS.No.42/2024) from the District Munsif Court, Sathy, Erode District, heard on 03.03.2026. The document records the cross-examination of Witness 1 (plaintiff Nirmala) regarding a disputed property that includes both residential and commercial portions. The witness testified about her 35 years of possession, the property's boundaries, and alleged encroachment issues, though her testimony contained inconsistencies regarding the adjacent temple's location and unauthorized construction. The court's order is not yet concluded in this excerpt—it appears to be an ongoing examination proceeding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a civil property dispute case (OS.No.42/2024) from the District Munsif Court, Sathy, Erode District, heard on 03.03.2026. The document records the cross-examination of Witness 1 (plaintiff Nirmala) regarding a disputed property that includes both residential and commercial portions. The witness testified about her 35 years of possession, the property's boundaries, and alleged encroachment issues, though her testimony contained inconsistencies regarding the adjacent temple's location and unauthorized construction. The court's order is not yet concluded in this excerpt—it appears to be an ongoing examination proceeding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts