Arulanthu vs Murugesan Advocate - Tr. K. Sasikumar — 28/2013
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order 7, Rule 1. Status: Part Heard. Next hearing: 01st April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNRM160000412022
Next Hearing
01st April 2026
Filing Number
28/2013
Filing Date
26-04-2013
Registration No
28/2013
Registration Date
26-04-2013
Court
District Munsif Court, Thiruvadanai
Judge
1-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Arulanthu
Adv. Tr.S.B.Kannan
Mariasusai
Adv. Tr.S.B.Kannan
Rajasekaran
Adv. Tr.S.B.Kannan
Savariraj
Adv. Tr.S.B.Kannan
Maasilamani (Died)
Adv. Tr.S.B.Kannan
Respondent(s)
Murugesan Advocate - Tr. K. Sasikumar
Murali
Adv. Tr. K. Sasikumar
Ulagu
Adv. Tr. K. Sasikumar
Naganadhan
Adv. Tr. K. Sasikumar
Tahsildar
Adv. APP Gr.I
District Collector
Adv. APP Gr.I
Divisional Engineer
Adv. APP Gr.I
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
Part Heard
Part Heard
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 06-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 13-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 30-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 10-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: This is a Tamil civil court order from the District Munsif Court in Tiruvannamalai (Case No. 28/2013, dated 11.09.2023) addressing cross-examination arguments in a property/water rights dispute. The court rejected multiple contentions raised by the defendant (DW1), finding that the defendant's arguments regarding survey numbers, water channel markings, agricultural practices, and customary rights were incorrect. The court upheld the plaintiff's claims regarding the defendant's water rights through a specific channel and rejected the defendant's attempts to deny the plaintiff's authority over the property and water access. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: This is a Tamil civil court order from the District Munsif Court in Tiruvannamalai (Case No. 28/2013, dated 11.09.2023) addressing cross-examination arguments in a property/water rights dispute. The court rejected multiple contentions raised by the defendant (DW1), finding that the defendant's arguments regarding survey numbers, water channel markings, agricultural practices, and customary rights were incorrect. The court upheld the plaintiff's claims regarding the defendant's water rights through a specific channel and rejected the defendant's attempts to deny the plaintiff's authority over the property and water access. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts