Senthil vs Muniyappan Advocate - ASHOK KUMAR.G — 100075/2017
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section UO7R1and6. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNKI070014102017
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
Filing Number
100092/2017
Filing Date
14-09-2017
Registration No
100075/2017
Registration Date
14-09-2017
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Pochampalli
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Senthil
Adv. JAYABALAN.M
Santha
Adv. M.Jayabalan
Manokaran
Adv. JAYABALAN.M
Ashokan
Adv. JAYABALAN.M
Respondent(s)
Muniyappan Advocate - ASHOK KUMAR.G
Venkatesan
Adv. ASHOK KUMAR.G
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 18-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 20-01-2026 | Arguments |
| 10-12-2025 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS No. 75/2017 Order Date: 08.01.2021 Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court rejected the petitioner's claims regarding property boundaries and construction disputes. The judge found that the petitioner failed to provide credible evidence supporting their version of events regarding the existing structures, property measurements, and alleged unauthorized constructions on the respondents' land. The court upheld the respondents' rights to their property and rejected the petitioner's arguments about shared ownership and boundary demarcations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS No. 75/2017 Order Date: 08.01.2021 Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court rejected the petitioner's claims regarding property boundaries and construction disputes. The judge found that the petitioner failed to provide credible evidence supporting their version of events regarding the existing structures, property measurements, and alleged unauthorized constructions on the respondents' land. The court upheld the respondents' rights to their property and rejected the petitioner's arguments about shared ownership and boundary demarcations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts