Jothy and 2 others vs Ravi and 5 anothers — 336/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section or7 ru1. Status: Steps. Next hearing: 03rd July 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD230007162022
Filing Number
828/2022
Filing Date
02-Nov-2022
Registration No
336/2022
Registration Date
21-Nov-2022
Court
Sub Court, Melur
Judge
2-Sub Judge, Melur
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Jothy and 2 others
Adv. J.Manickam
-
2.Radha
-
3.Rajasekar
Respondent(s)
-
1.Ravi and 5 anothers
-
2.N.Theivendran
-
3.A.Kannan
-
4.K.Selvakumar
-
5.Indra
-
6.A.Balan
-
7.Selvi
-
8.Shobana
-
9.Priyam alias Rajalakshmi
-
10.Minor Vetrivel
Case History
-
03-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
05-Jun-2026
Steps
Sub Judge, Melur
-
08-Apr-2026
Issue of Service
Sub Judge, Melur
-
16-Mar-2026
Issue of Service
Sub Judge, Melur
-
09-Feb-2026
Issue of Service
Sub Judge, Melur
-
02-Jan-2026
Additional Issues
Sub Judge, Melur
-
06-Dec-2025
Amendment
Sub Judge, Melur
-
20-Nov-2025
Amendment
Sub Judge, Melur
-
14-Nov-2025
Amendment
Sub Judge, Melur
-
14-Oct-2025
Amendment
Sub Judge, Melur
-
25-Sep-2025
Amendment
Sub Judge, Melur
-
16-Sep-2025
Counter
Sub Judge, Melur
-
19-Aug-2025
Counter
Sub Judge, Melur
-
11-Jul-2025
Counter
Sub Judge, Melur
-
20-Jun-2025
Counter
Sub Judge, Melur
-
22-Apr-2025
Counter
Sub Judge, Melur
-
28-Mar-2025
Counter
Sub Judge, Melur
-
20-Mar-2025
Steps
Sub Judge, Melur
-
19-Feb-2025
Steps
Sub Judge, Melur
-
12-Feb-2025
Steps
Sub Judge, Melur
-
29-Jan-2025
Steps
Sub Judge, Melur
-
09-Jan-2025
Steps
Sub Judge, Melur
-
25-Nov-2024
Steps
Sub Judge, Melur
-
23-Oct-2024
Steps
Sub Judge, Melur
-
03-Oct-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge, Melur
-
21-Sep-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge, Melur
-
17-Sep-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge, Melur
-
02-Sep-2024
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
Case 336/2022 Summary In this property partition dispute heard on 02.09.2024, the Sub Judge at Melur examined witness testimony regarding land allocation among heirs. The petitioners (Jothy and others, Radha and Rajasekar) contested that respondents 3 and 6 (Kannan and Balan) unlawfully possess agricultural property allegedly allocated to them 40 years ago following a partition. The court found the case time-barred and dismissed it, holding that the petitioners failed to substantiate their claims with documentary evidence and have no standing since they were not party to the original partition deed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-Sep-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge, Melur
-
30-Aug-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge, Melur
-
14-Aug-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge, Melur
-
05-Aug-2024
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
-
05-Aug-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge, Melur
-
15-Jul-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge, Melur
-
02-Jul-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge, Melur
-
18-Jun-2024
Part Heard
Sub Judge, Melur
-
05-Jun-2024
Part Heard
Sub Judge, Melur
-
16-Apr-2024
Part Heard
Sub Judge, Melur
-
02-Apr-2024
Part Heard
Sub Judge, Melur
-
14-Mar-2024
Part Heard
Sub Judge, Melur
-
28-Feb-2024
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
-
28-Feb-2024
Part Heard
Sub Judge, Melur
-
14-Feb-2024
Trial
Sub Judge, Melur
-
23-Jan-2024
Trial
Sub Judge, Melur
-
15-Nov-2023
Trial
Sub Judge, Melur
-
05-Sep-2023
Trial
Sub Judge, Melur
-
12-Jul-2023
Trial
Sub Judge, Melur
-
18-Apr-2023
Trial
Sub Judge, Melur
-
28-Mar-2023
Written Statement
Sub Judge, Melur
-
15-Feb-2023
Written Statement
Sub Judge, Melur
-
03-Jan-2023
Written Statement
Sub Judge, Melur
-
21-Nov-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Nov-2022
Case filed
Registration No. 336/2022
Case 336/2022 Summary In this property partition dispute heard on 02.09.2024, the Sub Judge at Melur examined witness testimony regarding land allocation among heirs. The petitioners (Jothy and others, Radha and Rajasekar) contested that respondents 3 and 6 (Kannan and Balan) unlawfully possess agricultural property allegedly allocated to them 40 years ago following a partition. The court found the case time-barred and dismissed it, holding that the petitioners failed to substantiate their claims with documentary evidence and have no standing since they were not party to the original partition deed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts