Sahul Hammed vs Syed — 101/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Order7,Rule1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 27-Mar-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNRM160010942022

Filing Number

114/2022

Filing Date

27-Sep-2022

Registration No

101/2022

Registration Date

27-Sep-2022

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.Sahul Hammed

    Adv. Tr.U.Sivaraman

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Syed

  2. 2.Paritha

  3. 3.Mehar

  4. 4.Bowsiya

  5. 5.Shiek Mohammed

  6. 6.Iysamariyam

  7. 7.Saviya Beevi

  8. 8.Nagalingam

  9. 9.Devadass

  10. 10.Karpagam

    Adv. Tr.S.B.Kannan

Case History

  1. 27-Mar-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  3. 20-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  4. 19-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  5. 11-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  6. 14-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  7. 17-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  8. 10-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  9. 08-Aug-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    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.

  10. 08-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  11. 22-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  12. 24-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  13. 09-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  14. 02-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  15. 21-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  16. 10-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  17. 05-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  18. 21-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  19. 10-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  20. 18-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  21. 28-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  22. 07-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  23. 23-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  24. 04-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  25. 24-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  26. 10-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  27. 27-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  28. 21-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  29. 13-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  30. 09-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  31. 05-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  32. 29-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  33. 11-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  34. 01-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  35. 25-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  36. 13-Jun-2024

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  37. 13-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  38. 04-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  39. 08-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  40. 26-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  41. 22-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  42. 13-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  43. 05-Mar-2024

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  44. 05-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  45. 09-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  46. 29-Jan-2024

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  47. 29-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  48. 03-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  49. 20-Dec-2023

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  50. 20-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  51. 08-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  52. 27-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  53. 20-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  54. 09-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  55. 31-Oct-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif

  56. 19-Oct-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif

  57. 03-Oct-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif

  58. 27-Sep-2023

    Trial

    District Munsif

  59. 20-Sep-2023

    Issues

    District Munsif

  60. 02-Sep-2023

    Issues

    District Munsif

  61. 10-Aug-2023

    Issues

    District Munsif

  62. 03-Aug-2023

    Appearance

    District Munsif

  63. 21-Jul-2023

    Service Pending

    District Munsif

  64. 30-Jun-2023

    Service Pending

    District Munsif

  65. 09-Jun-2023

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  66. 26-Apr-2023

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  67. 31-Mar-2023

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  68. 14-Mar-2023

    Publication

    District Munsif

  69. 10-Mar-2023

    Steps

    District Munsif

  70. 10-Feb-2023

    Steps

    District Munsif

  71. 11-Jan-2023

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  72. 19-Dec-2022

    Service Pending

    District Munsif

  73. 22-Nov-2022

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  74. 26-Oct-2022

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  75. 27-Sep-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  76. 27-Sep-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 101/2022

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case