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.

Evidence Next hearing 10-Apr-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNRM160008582022

Filing Number

49/2021

Filing Date

06-Aug-2021

Registration No

49/2021

Registration Date

06-Aug-2021

Court

District Munsif Court, Thiruvadanai

Judge

1-District Munsif

Last updated 25-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7,Rule1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Irudhayamary

    Adv. Tr.K.Ponmudi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.R.Samadhanam Advocate - Tr.K.Dhanpal

  2. 2.Sandhanamary

    Adv. Tr. K.R. Jegan

  3. 3.Vedhamanikkam @ Anitha

    Adv. Tr. K.R. Jegan

  4. 4.Irudhayamary

    Adv. Tr.K.C.Tamilarasan

  5. 5.Vijayan

    Adv. Tr.K.C.Tamilarasan

Case History

  1. 10-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  3. 06-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  4. 19-Jan-2026

    Amendment

    District Munsif

  5. 16-Dec-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif

  6. 14-Nov-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif

  7. 27-Oct-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif

  8. 15-Oct-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif

  9. 26-Sep-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif

  10. 01-Sep-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif

  11. 05-Aug-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif

  12. 10-Jul-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif

  13. 17-Jun-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif

  14. 15-Apr-2025

    Amendment

    District Munsif

  15. 28-Mar-2025

    Orders

    District Munsif

  16. 04-Feb-2025

    Orders

    District Munsif

  17. 23-Jan-2025

    Orders

    District Munsif

  18. 20-Dec-2024

    Counter

    District Munsif

  19. 06-Dec-2024

    Counter

    District Munsif

  20. 25-Nov-2024

    Counter

    District Munsif

  21. 06-Nov-2024

    Counter

    District Munsif

  22. 16-Oct-2024

    Mediation

    District Munsif

  23. 30-Sep-2024

    Mediation

    District Munsif

  24. 09-Aug-2024

    Mediation

    District Munsif

  25. 18-Jul-2024

    Counter

    District Munsif

  26. 08-Jul-2024

    Counter

    District Munsif

  27. 27-Jun-2024

    Counter

    District Munsif

  28. 20-Jun-2024

    Counter

    District Munsif

  29. 04-Jun-2024

    Counter

    District Munsif

  30. 17-Apr-2024

    Counter

    District Munsif

  31. 04-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  32. 21-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  33. 07-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  34. 01-Mar-2024

    Lok Adalat

    District Munsif

  35. 16-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  36. 08-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  37. 31-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  38. 19-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  39. 11-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  40. 02-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  41. 22-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  42. 07-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  43. 28-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  44. 15-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  45. 10-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  46. 16-Oct-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  47. 10-Oct-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  48. 27-Sep-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  49. 21-Sep-2023

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    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.

  50. 21-Sep-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  51. 05-Sep-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  52. 11-Aug-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  53. 19-Jul-2023

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  54. 19-Jul-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  55. 05-Jul-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  56. 07-Jun-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif

  57. 02-Jun-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif

  58. 21-Apr-2023

    Issues

    District Munsif

  59. 29-Mar-2023

    Service Pending

    District Munsif

  60. 10-Mar-2023

    Service Pending

    District Munsif

  61. 08-Feb-2023

    Service Pending

    District Munsif

  62. 01-Feb-2023

    Service Pending

    District Munsif

  63. 04-Jan-2023

    Service Pending

    District Munsif

  64. 08-Dec-2022

    Service Pending

    District Munsif

  65. 11-Nov-2022

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  66. 18-Oct-2022

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  67. 22-Sep-2022

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  68. 30-Aug-2022

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  69. 11-Aug-2022

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  70. 12-Jul-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  71. 06-Aug-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 49/2021

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case