R.SAMPATH AND 2 OTHERS vs R.PALANISAMY AND 8 OTHERS — 317/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section OR7R1. Status: Trial. Next hearing: 04th August 2026.

Trial Next hearing 04-Aug-2026

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNKR010039532023

Filing Number

1263/2023

Filing Date

11-Dec-2023

Registration No

317/2023

Registration Date

11-Dec-2023

Court

Principal District Court, Karur

Judge

1-District Judge

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section OR7R1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.R.SAMPATH AND 2 OTHERS

    Adv. P.PREMKUMAR

  2. 2.S.AJAYKUMAR

  3. 3.S.SIVAPRASAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.R.PALANISAMY AND 8 OTHERS

  2. 2.P.VARSHINI

  3. 3.MINOR.P.LAKSHNA

  4. 4.P.PERIYASAMY

  5. 5.P.CHANDRASEKAR

  6. 6.P.KALAISELVI

  7. 7.M.KUPPUSAMY

  8. 8.M.MARAPPAN

  9. 9.P.MANOJ

Case History

  1. 04-Aug-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Jun-2026

    Trial

    District Judge

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    Trial

    District Judge

  4. 26-Mar-2026

    Trial

    District Judge

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Trial

    District Judge

  6. 18-Feb-2026

    Trial

    District Judge

  7. 05-Jan-2026

    Trial

    District Judge

  8. 10-Nov-2025

    Trial

    District Judge

  9. 19-Sep-2025

    Trial

    District Judge

  10. 18-Aug-2025

    Trial

    District Judge

  11. 24-Jun-2025

    Trial

    District Judge

  12. 24-Apr-2025

    Trial

    District Judge

  13. 16-Apr-2025

    Issues

    District Judge

  14. 12-Feb-2025

    Issues

    District Judge

  15. 08-Jan-2025

    Issues

    District Judge

  16. 11-Dec-2024

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

  17. 11-Dec-2024

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: O.S. No. 317/2023 Outcome: Petition dismissed with no costs. R. Chandrasekaran, a third party, sought to be impleaded as the 10th defendant in an ongoing partition suit filed by R. Sampath and others against R. Palanisamy and others. The District Judge held that Chandrasekaran claims independent title to property in Patta No. 331, which neither plaintiffs nor defendants assert rights over. Since partition suits require joint rights/possession among parties, and the petitioner traces his claim independently, he is neither a necessary nor proper party. The court found that while he may have a title claim, such claims cannot be decided within a partition suit, citing Supreme Court precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  18. 11-Dec-2024

    Issues

    District Judge

  19. 10-Dec-2024

    IA Pending

    District Judge

  20. 28-Nov-2024

    IA Pending

    District Judge

  21. 22-Nov-2024

    IA Pending

    District Judge

  22. 12-Nov-2024

    IA Pending

    District Judge

  23. 29-Oct-2024

    IA Pending

    District Judge

  24. 22-Oct-2024

    IA Pending

    District Judge

  25. 01-Oct-2024

    IA Pending

    District Judge

  26. 11-Sep-2024

    IA Pending

    District Judge

  27. 13-Aug-2024

    Issues

    District Judge

  28. 03-Aug-2024

    IA Pending

    District Judge

  29. 11-Jul-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    District Judge

  30. 27-Jun-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    District Judge

  31. 12-Jun-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    District Judge

  32. 24-Apr-2024

    Written Statement

    District Judge

  33. 27-Mar-2024

    Written Statement

    District Judge

  34. 27-Feb-2024

    Written Statement

    District Judge

  35. 30-Jan-2024

    Written Statement

    District Judge

  36. 11-Dec-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  37. 11-Dec-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 317/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: O.S. No. 317/2023 Outcome: Petition dismissed with no costs. R. Chandrasekaran, a third party, sought to be impleaded as the 10th defendant in an ongoing partition suit filed by R. Sampath and others against R. Palanisamy and others. The District Judge held that Chandrasekaran claims independent title to property in Patta No. 331, which neither plaintiffs nor defendants assert rights over. Since partition suits require joint rights/possession among parties, and the petitioner traces his claim independently, he is neither a necessary nor proper party. The court found that while he may have a title claim, such claims cannot be decided within a partition suit, citing Supreme Court precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case