SEENIVASAN vs Muralidharan — 111/2022
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section O7,R1to6. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNKI160001942022
Next Hearing
16th June 2026
Filing Number
160/2022
Filing Date
01-06-2022
Registration No
111/2022
Registration Date
06-06-2022
Court
Sub Court, Denkanikottai
Judge
3-Subordinate Judge, Denkanikottai
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SEENIVASAN
Adv. Vedi.T
Respondent(s)
Muralidharan
Narendira Babu
The District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri
The Tashildhar, Denkanikottai
The Village Administrative Officer, Belakondapalli
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Subordinate Judge, Denkanikottai
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 08-04-2026 | Part Heard |
| 26-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 12-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 24-02-2026 | Part Heard |
Interim Orders
In Original Suit 111/2022, the court heard cross-examination of the petitioner Seenivasan and defendants on 08.04.2026 regarding disputed property ownership and documentation. The petitioner's testimony revealed discrepancies in an allegedly fraudulent Tamil translation of a 1952 Telugu document and inconsistencies in the buyer's name. The court rejected the petitioner's claims of fraud and document manipulation, noting insufficient evidence regarding the 2017 survey, missing succession certificates, and lack of supporting documentation. The case was dismissed with no further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
In Original Suit 111/2022, the court heard cross-examination of the petitioner Seenivasan and defendants on 08.04.2026 regarding disputed property ownership and documentation. The petitioner's testimony revealed discrepancies in an allegedly fraudulent Tamil translation of a 1952 Telugu document and inconsistencies in the buyer's name. The court rejected the petitioner's claims of fraud and document manipulation, noting insufficient evidence regarding the 2017 survey, missing succession certificates, and lack of supporting documentation. The case was dismissed with no further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts