Perulammal and 3 others vs Alagarsamy and 3 others Advocate - SHYAM KUMAR V — 205/2017
Case under Coalbearingareas(acquisitionanddevelopment)amendmentandvalidationact Section 25d. Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNMD130001992017
Next Hearing
01st June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
210/2017
Filing Date
18-09-2017
Registration No
205/2017
Registration Date
18-09-2017
Court
District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam
Judge
1-Principal District Munsif,Thirumangalam
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Perulammal and 3 others
Adv. MADHAVAN S
Respondent(s)
Alagarsamy and 3 others Advocate - SHYAM KUMAR V
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Munsif,Thirumangalam
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | IA Pending | |
| 24-03-2026 | IA Pending | |
| 09-03-2026 | IA Pending | |
| 20-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 04-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case No. 205/2017 | Date: 02.06.2025 This is a cross-examination of witness Malai Chami in a joint family property partition case. The court examined the witness regarding: (1) the relief sought (joint family property partition); (2) existence of additional joint properties beyond those in the suit; (3) sale of property by defendant 1 (Azhagarsamy) to defendant 3 before filing the suit; and (4) various subsequent property transfers and donations. The witness confirmed awareness of multiple property transfers and partitions among family members. The court found that defendant 1 legally partitioned and transferred properties to defendants 2 and 3 in accordance with law, warranting dismissal of the claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No. 205/2017 | Date: 02.06.2025 This is a cross-examination of witness Malai Chami in a joint family property partition case. The court examined the witness regarding: (1) the relief sought (joint family property partition); (2) existence of additional joint properties beyond those in the suit; (3) sale of property by defendant 1 (Azhagarsamy) to defendant 3 before filing the suit; and (4) various subsequent property transfers and donations. The witness confirmed awareness of multiple property transfers and partitions among family members. The court found that defendant 1 legally partitioned and transferred properties to defendants 2 and 3 in accordance with law, warranting dismissal of the claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts