S. Palraj vs Pandi alias Gopalakrishnan Advocate - ALAGARSAMY P G — 51/2019
Case under Coalbearingareas(acquisitionanddevelopment)amendmentandvalidationact Section 25(b). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD130000762019
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
Filing Number
99/2019
Filing Date
08-03-2019
Registration No
51/2019
Registration Date
08-03-2019
Court
District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam
Judge
1-Principal District Munsif,Thirumangalam
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
S. Palraj
Adv. K. Ramamoorthy
Respondent(s)
Pandi alias Gopalakrishnan Advocate - ALAGARSAMY P G
Selvaperumal
Yasothai
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Munsif,Thirumangalam
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-06-2026 | Arguments |
| 03-06-2026 | Arguments |
| 01-06-2026 | Arguments |
| 28-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 10-04-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
This is a deposition of a witness (Selvaperumal) in O.S. No. 51/2019 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, recorded on 10.04.2026. The witness testified regarding a property dispute concerning land (Survey No. 104/5), establishing that the petitioner S. Palraj has rights to the property based on a 1963 deed of gift and subsequent partition. The witness acknowledged that despite knowing the petitioner's legitimate claim to the property, he had been making false counter-arguments, and conceded that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a deposition of a witness (Selvaperumal) in O.S. No. 51/2019 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, recorded on 10.04.2026. The witness testified regarding a property dispute concerning land (Survey No. 104/5), establishing that the petitioner S. Palraj has rights to the property based on a 1963 deed of gift and subsequent partition. The witness acknowledged that despite knowing the petitioner's legitimate claim to the property, he had been making false counter-arguments, and conceded that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts