Sahul Hammed vs Syed — 101/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7,Rule1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNRM160010942022
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
114/2022
Filing Date
27-09-2022
Registration No
101/2022
Registration Date
27-09-2022
Court
District Munsif Court, Thiruvadanai
Judge
1-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sahul Hammed
Adv. Tr.U.Sivaraman
Respondent(s)
Syed
Paritha
Mehar
Bowsiya
Shiek Mohammed
Iysamariyam
Saviya Beevi
Nagalingam
Devadass
Karpagam
Adv. Tr.S.B.Kannan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 20-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 19-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 11-12-2025 | Evidence |
| 14-11-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary This is a civil property dispute case (Original Case No. 101/2022) from the District Civil Court, Tirupati. The court examined cross-examination statements of witness DW1 (Karpakam) regarding ownership of agricultural land measuring 1 acre 20 cents. The court rejected the witness's testimony regarding the plaintiff's claims about property transfer to Muhammad Abdul Qadeer's family, finding inconsistencies in documentary evidence and rejecting arguments about joint ownership and res judicata applicability. The court found the witness's statements regarding possession and lineage claims to be false and fabricated, ultimately denying relief to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This is a civil property dispute case (Original Case No. 101/2022) from the District Civil Court, Tirupati. The court examined cross-examination statements of witness DW1 (Karpakam) regarding ownership of agricultural land measuring 1 acre 20 cents. The court rejected the witness's testimony regarding the plaintiff's claims about property transfer to Muhammad Abdul Qadeer's family, finding inconsistencies in documentary evidence and rejecting arguments about joint ownership and res judicata applicability. The court found the witness's statements regarding possession and lineage claims to be false and fabricated, ultimately denying relief to the plaintiff. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts