Irudhayamary vs R.Samadhanam Advocate - Tr.K.Dhanpal — 49/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7,Rule1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNRM160008582022
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
49/2021
Filing Date
06-08-2021
Registration No
49/2021
Registration Date
06-08-2021
Court
District Munsif Court, Thiruvadanai
Judge
1-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Irudhayamary
Adv. Tr.K.Ponmudi
Respondent(s)
R.Samadhanam Advocate - Tr.K.Dhanpal
Sandhanamary
Adv. Tr. K.R. Jegan
Vedhamanikkam @ Anitha
Adv. Tr. K.R. Jegan
Irudhayamary
Adv. Tr.K.C.Tamilarasan
Vijayan
Adv. Tr.K.C.Tamilarasan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
Evidence
Evidence
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 19-01-2026 | Amendment |
| 16-12-2025 | Amendment |
| 14-11-2025 | Amendment |
Interim Orders
This is a civil case (Original Case No. 49/2021) heard in the District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai. The court examined the cross-examination testimony of PW1 (plaintiff) regarding disputed property inheritances and partitions among siblings. The judge found the plaintiff's claims regarding the properties not being allocated to her father were contradictory and rejected her testimony as unreliable. The court held that since the defendants (1st and 5th respondents) had possessed certain properties for over 30 years with valid title documents, the plaintiff had no legal right to claim those properties, and consequently, dismissed her petition for relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a civil case (Original Case No. 49/2021) heard in the District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai. The court examined the cross-examination testimony of PW1 (plaintiff) regarding disputed property inheritances and partitions among siblings. The judge found the plaintiff's claims regarding the properties not being allocated to her father were contradictory and rejected her testimony as unreliable. The court held that since the defendants (1st and 5th respondents) had possessed certain properties for over 30 years with valid title documents, the plaintiff had no legal right to claim those properties, and consequently, dismissed her petition for relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts