Guruvan @ Guruvaboyan vs Mottaiyan — 54/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7 R1-6. Status: Steps. Next hearing: 06th July 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNKI110000942022
Filing Number
93/2022
Filing Date
07-Feb-2022
Registration No
54/2022
Registration Date
07-Feb-2022
Court
Sub Court, Uthangarai
Judge
2-Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
Last updated 20-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Guruvan @ Guruvaboyan
Adv. S.Sasikumar
Respondent(s)
-
1.Mottaiyan
-
2.Kuppammal
-
3.Theerthagiri
-
4.Govindaraj
-
5.Kadhiresan
-
6.Velan
-
7.Sanjeevan
-
8.Selvaraj
-
9.The District Registrar
-
10.The District Registrar
Case History
-
06-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
05-Jun-2026
Steps
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
20-Apr-2026
Evidence
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
01-Apr-2026
Evidence
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
18-Mar-2026
Evidence
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
25-Feb-2026
Evidence
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
06-Feb-2026
Evidence
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
19-Jan-2026
Evidence
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
12-Dec-2025
Evidence
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
01-Dec-2025
Evidence
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
17-Nov-2025
Evidence
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
07-Nov-2025
Evidence
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
27-Oct-2025
Evidence
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
13-Oct-2025
Evidence
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
22-Sep-2025
Trial
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
08-Sep-2025
Trial
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
08-Aug-2025
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
This is a property dispute case in Tamil involving inheritance and land ownership. Petitioner Guruvan purchased agricultural land in 1985 and cultivated it alongside his brother Theerthagiri, each holding 2 acres with separate deeds. Theerthagiri later sold his 2-acre portion to respondents (defendants 7 and 8), allegedly without Guruvan's knowledge. The court examined Guruvan's testimony regarding boundary disputes, cultivation history, and family partition details. The judge found the petitioner's claims insufficiently substantiated and dismissed the petition, concluding that the land transfer was valid. Cross-examination revealed inconsistencies in the petitioner's account regarding property boundaries and family arrangements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-Aug-2025
Trial
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
18-Jul-2025
Trial
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
02-Jul-2025
Trial
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
03-Jun-2025
Trial
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
01-Mar-2025
Trial
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
10-Feb-2025
Trial
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
16-Nov-2024
Trial
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
03-Aug-2024
Trial
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
08-Mar-2024
Trial
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
02-Dec-2023
Trial
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
05-Aug-2023
Trial
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
28-Apr-2023
Trial
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
28-Feb-2023
Trial
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
06-Feb-2023
Trial
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
30-Nov-2022
Trial
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
13-Sep-2022
Trial
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
10-Aug-2022
Evidence
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
07-Jul-2022
Written Statement
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
28-Jun-2022
Written Statement
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
16-Jun-2022
Written Statement
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
16-Mar-2022
Written Statement
Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai
-
07-Feb-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Feb-2022
Case filed
Registration No. 54/2022
This is a property dispute case in Tamil involving inheritance and land ownership. Petitioner Guruvan purchased agricultural land in 1985 and cultivated it alongside his brother Theerthagiri, each holding 2 acres with separate deeds. Theerthagiri later sold his 2-acre portion to respondents (defendants 7 and 8), allegedly without Guruvan's knowledge. The court examined Guruvan's testimony regarding boundary disputes, cultivation history, and family partition details. The judge found the petitioner's claims insufficiently substantiated and dismissed the petition, concluding that the land transfer was valid. Cross-examination revealed inconsistencies in the petitioner's account regarding property boundaries and family arrangements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts