MAGESH R vs SESHASAYANAM R Advocate - DINESHKUMAR P — 24/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1 AND 2. Status: Judgement. Next hearing: 18th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNRP050000472024
Next Hearing
18th March 2026
Filing Number
24/2024
Filing Date
22-12-2022
Registration No
24/2024
Registration Date
07-01-2023
Court
II Additional District and Sessions Court, Arakkonam
Judge
1-2nd Additional District Judge, Arakkonam
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MAGESH R
Adv. RAMAMOORTHY P
Respondent(s)
SESHASAYANAM R Advocate - DINESHKUMAR P
Hearing History
Judge: 1-2nd Additional District Judge, Arakkonam
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 06-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 05-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 02-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 24-02-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY This is a Tamil language court order (OS.NO: 24/2024) from the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Arakkonam, dated 11.02.2026. The case involves a property dispute where the defendant (DW 1) testified during cross-examination regarding a sale deed (Exhibit A.1) for immovable property worth Rs. 45 lakhs. The defendant claimed he signed the document without reading it and that it was prepared by the plaintiff afterward. The court found the defendant's testimony contradictory and unreliable, ultimately ruling that the sale deed (Exhibit A.1) is valid and enforceable, and directed the plaintiff's claims be considered for appropriate relief including property transfer and return of earnest money as stipulated in the agreement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY This is a Tamil language court order (OS.NO: 24/2024) from the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Arakkonam, dated 11.02.2026. The case involves a property dispute where the defendant (DW 1) testified during cross-examination regarding a sale deed (Exhibit A.1) for immovable property worth Rs. 45 lakhs. The defendant claimed he signed the document without reading it and that it was prepared by the plaintiff afterward. The court found the defendant's testimony contradictory and unreliable, ultimately ruling that the sale deed (Exhibit A.1) is valid and enforceable, and directed the plaintiff's claims be considered for appropriate relief including property transfer and return of earnest money as stipulated in the agreement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts