THE IDOL OF ARULMIGHU ANOORAMMAN, THUMBIVADI VILLAGE AND ANOTHER vs PRESIDENT, KARUR DISTRICT SAGAJA NALVAZHVU SANGAM, AND 106 OTHERS Advocate - C.NAGARAJAN — 1000118/2018
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section OR7R1. Status: Stay. Next hearing: 18th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNKR010016912018
Next Hearing
18th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1001366/2018
Filing Date
17-12-2018
Registration No
1000118/2018
Registration Date
20-12-2018
Court
Principal District Court, Karur
Judge
1-District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE IDOL OF ARULMIGHU ANOORAMMAN, THUMBIVADI VILLAGE AND ANOTHER
Adv. K.NAGARAJAN
THE IDOL OF ARULMIGHU JAYANKONDAMMAN, SENGALPURAM
Respondent(s)
PRESIDENT, KARUR DISTRICT SAGAJA NALVAZHVU SANGAM, AND 106 OTHERS Advocate - C.NAGARAJAN
SRI RAMACHANDRA MISSION , REP. BY ITS COMIMITEE MEMBER GOVINDA IYENGAR
J.GANESH
S.M.MUNEESHWARAN
R.THILAGAVATHI
P.SIVASUBRAMANIAN
S.D.MOHANRAJ, (DECEASED)
T.P.K.PRASATH
R.HEMALATHA
A.JESUDASS GNANAKIRISTY
J.JEGADHEESAN
V.LATHA
P.SUMATHI
M.ALLI
R.ESWARI
P.RAJAMMAL (DECEASED)
K.GANDHIMATHIDEVI
S.JEEVA
T.BALAN
S.THILAGAVATHI
E.ABBAS
Adv. K.R.SIVAM
S.CHANDRIKA
Adv. C.NAGARAJAN
K.G.RAVINDRAN
Adv. C.NAGARAJAN
M.RAMESH
M.PRASANNA
R.ARTHI
R.BALASUBRAMANIAM
K.G.KARTHIKEYAN
T.VIJAYALAKSHMI
C.GANESHKUMAR
S.R.UDHAYAKUMAR
V.JEYAKANTH
G.UMA MAHESWARI
A.ANGAMUTHU
A.ARUL SELVAM
V.AMSAVENI
R.SORNAM
A.RAJU
Adv. C.NAGARAJAN
G.BALAMURUGAN
T.SENGOTTUVALAN
M.PANNEERSELVAM
K.SARAVANAN
P.SARAVANAN
T.GNANASEKARAN
B.BHUVANESHWARI
C.NATARAJAN
S.R.SURESH
P.KANAGARAJ
R.UMA MAHESHWARI
G.PADMINI
N.DHANABAL
S.VIJAYALAKSHMI
S.KIRIJA
D.THILAGAVATHI
T.HARIKRISHNAN
P.THANGAVELRAJAN
D.SATHYAPRAKASH
N.SUBBULAKSHMI
M.THIYAGARAJAN
S.VASUKI
M.AMIRTHAVALLI
B.RATHINAMBAL
P.GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY
N.MUTHUKUMARAN
J.THILAGAM
M.KALIDASS
A.SHANTHI
M.LOGANATHAN
K.KANDASAMY
R.SIVAM
M.NAGARATHINAM
V.SUJATHA
R.THARAKESHWARI
ESWARI RADHAKRISHNAN
S.MURUGAESAN
A.RAMAMURTHY
M.GEETHA
G.SUGANTHI
A.NALLALAGAN
S.SHANMUGASUNDARAM
R.BALASUBRAMANI
J.PARVATHAM
C.SUBRAMANIAM
C.SHANTHI
P.SUGANYA
S.KAVITHAMANI
L.SENTHILVELAN
M.SONAIMUTHU
B.SAVITHIRI
B.VELMURGAN
S.GANESHKUMAR
K.K.PADMANABHAN
P.VASUMATHI
S.CHITRA
J.SUMESHKUMAR
R.S.RAMACHANDAR
Adv. C.NAGARAJAN
A.J.BASKAR
Adv. C.NAGARAJAN
S.KALPANA
R.KALEESWARI
V.KAMARAJ
R.T.VENKATACHALAM
R.SRIDHAR
SHANTHI SIVAKUMAR
J.UMA MAHESHWARI
K.KANAGARAJ
Adv. C.NAGARAJAN
S.SUBRAMANI
M.SUVARAKAVI
SHANMUGASUNDARAM
MUTHUVIJAYAN
SRISANKARI
SARATH BHARATHI
CHITRA
SRI RAM
SUDHARSAN
PRASANNA PARTHASARATHI
THANGAMANI
V.HANUVIGNESH
N.S.JAWAHAR
SARAVANAN
KAVITHA
MEENAKSHI
JAYANTHI JAYAKANTH
SRIDEVI JAYAKANTH
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge
Stay
Stay
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Stay | |
| 07-04-2026 | Stay | |
| 06-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 02-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 01-04-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Court: Principal District Court, Karur Case No.: A.V. No. 118/2018 Date: April 1, 2026 The 27th defendant, Balasubramaniam, deposed as a witness under Section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1969, and Section 95 CrPC. The defendant's testimony and various documentary evidence (including Aadhaar card, sale deed dated 16.10.2008, encumbrance certificate, joint patta, and legal opinion dated 10.02.2008) were admitted as exhibits. The court found the plaintiffs' case lacks merit and ordered dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit, holding that the sale deed and subsequent registration are invalid due to defects in the original title, and rejecting allegations against the lawyer and documents filed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Court: Principal District Court, Karur Case No.: A.V. No. 118/2018 Date: April 1, 2026 The 27th defendant, Balasubramaniam, deposed as a witness under Section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1969, and Section 95 CrPC. The defendant's testimony and various documentary evidence (including Aadhaar card, sale deed dated 16.10.2008, encumbrance certificate, joint patta, and legal opinion dated 10.02.2008) were admitted as exhibits. The court found the plaintiffs' case lacks merit and ordered dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit, holding that the sale deed and subsequent registration are invalid due to defects in the original title, and rejecting allegations against the lawyer and documents filed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts