Sethupakkiyam and 2 other (Power agent through Representative Valli) ) vs Pappa — 47/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 7Rule1. Status: For further Proceedings. Next hearing: 02nd April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNRM090000602023
Next Hearing
02nd April 2026
Filing Number
63/2023
Filing Date
05-12-2023
Registration No
47/2023
Registration Date
05-12-2023
Court
District Munsif Court, Mudhukulathur
Judge
1-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sethupakkiyam and 2 other (Power agent through Representative Valli) )
Adv. Thiru. R.M.Boominathan
Ezhilarasi
Gomathi
Respondent(s)
Pappa
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 06-03-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 20-02-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 12-02-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 29-01-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary: The petition filed under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 151 CPC was allowed. The court permitted the plaintiffs to mark an unregistered partition deed (dated 28.02.1977) as evidence in their suit for declaration and recovery of possession after paying the deficit stamp duty. The court ruled that the defendant can challenge the deed's genuineness during trial, and merely marking the document after payment of stamp duty would not prejudice the defendant's case. No order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The petition filed under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 151 CPC was allowed. The court permitted the plaintiffs to mark an unregistered partition deed (dated 28.02.1977) as evidence in their suit for declaration and recovery of possession after paying the deficit stamp duty. The court ruled that the defendant can challenge the deed's genuineness during trial, and merely marking the document after payment of stamp duty would not prejudice the defendant's case. No order as to costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts