P.Samuvel vs P.Murugammal — 34/2021
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section Or7R1to6. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNKI010004582021
Next Hearing
03rd June 2026
Filing Number
113/2021
Filing Date
15-02-2021
Registration No
34/2021
Registration Date
15-02-2021
Court
Principal District Court, Krishnagiri
Judge
2-Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
P.Samuvel
Adv. Mariappan.A
Respondent(s)
P.Murugammal
Sumathi
P.Shakthivel
P.Valli
P.Gowri
K.Gowri
P.Gangappan
P.Vajiravel
Mani
Adv. SUBRAMANI.A.S,THIRUVARASAN.E
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Additional Issues
Additional Issues
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 01-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 02-03-2026 | Additional Issues |
| 27-02-2026 | Additional Issues |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS No. 34/2021 Outcome: The petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint was dismissed. Key Facts: G. Munisamy (14th defendant) sought rejection of P. Samuvel's partition suit, arguing the suit was barred by limitation and based on false allegations, as a property sale deed was executed in 1973 before the plaintiff was even born. The defendant claimed the plaintiff only recently alleged knowledge of the sale deed (December 2022) after 19 years of attaining majority. Ruling: The court held that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law that can only be decided at trial, not at the plaint-rejection stage. The plaint's averments regarding when the plaintiff gained knowledge must be accepted as pleaded. Accordingly, the application lacked merit and was dismissed without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS No. 34/2021 Outcome: The petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint was dismissed. Key Facts: G. Munisamy (14th defendant) sought rejection of P. Samuvel's partition suit, arguing the suit was barred by limitation and based on false allegations, as a property sale deed was executed in 1973 before the plaintiff was even born. The defendant claimed the plaintiff only recently alleged knowledge of the sale deed (December 2022) after 19 years of attaining majority. Ruling: The court held that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law that can only be decided at trial, not at the plaint-rejection stage. The plaint's averments regarding when the plaintiff gained knowledge must be accepted as pleaded. Accordingly, the application lacked merit and was dismissed without costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts