Raja Jeyanthi vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by District Collector and 4 ors Advocate - Government Pleader — 90/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Status: Judgement. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNKK040001272022
Next Hearing
02nd June 2026
Filing Number
212/2022
Filing Date
29-04-2022
Registration No
90/2022
Registration Date
29-04-2022
Court
Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari
Judge
7-I Additional District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Raja Jeyanthi
Adv. Adv R.Shunmughanandha Karthees
Respondent(s)
State of Tamilnadu Rep by District Collector and 4 ors Advocate - Government Pleader
The Executive Officer, The Kottaram Panchayat,
Adv. Government Pleader
Suresh Rajan
Adv. Adv M.S. Moorthy
Steephen
Adv. Adv M.S. Moorthy
Hearing History
Judge: 7-I Additional District Munsif
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 22-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 08-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 27-03-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Summary: In this First Additional Civil Court case (O.S No. 90/2022) dated 03.03.2026, the court examined a land encroachment dispute involving elevated land/basement construction affecting water drainage. The court rejected the plaintiff's claims that defendants (plots 3-5) illegally raised their land level, causing water logging in the plaintiff's property, finding insufficient evidence of wrongdoing and questioning the credibility of the plaintiff's testimony. The cross-examination of the plaintiff was completed, with the court noting contradictions in the plaintiff's statements and directing the case to proceed further. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In this First Additional Civil Court case (O.S No. 90/2022) dated 03.03.2026, the court examined a land encroachment dispute involving elevated land/basement construction affecting water drainage. The court rejected the plaintiff's claims that defendants (plots 3-5) illegally raised their land level, causing water logging in the plaintiff's property, finding insufficient evidence of wrongdoing and questioning the credibility of the plaintiff's testimony. The cross-examination of the plaintiff was completed, with the court noting contradictions in the plaintiff's statements and directing the case to proceed further. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts