RAMAMOORTHY N vs NARASIMMAN V C Advocate - GOPAL C — 78/2026
Case under Suits Valuation Act Section 25(b). Status: Part Heard. Next hearing: 17th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNRP070000902026
Filing Number
90/2026
Filing Date
05-Jan-2021
Registration No
78/2026
Registration Date
18-Jan-2021
Court
Special Sub Court to deal with LAOP Cases, Arakkonam
Judge
3-Special Subordinate Judge(LAOP),Arakkonam
Last updated 11-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAMAMOORTHY N
Adv. ARUMUGAM K N
-
2.JAYAPALAN N
Adv. ARUMUGAM K N
-
3.ANBU N
Adv. ARUMUGAM K N
-
4.PRABU N
Adv. ARUMUGAM K N
Respondent(s)
-
1.NARASIMMAN V C Advocate - GOPAL C
-
2.MUNUSAMI G
-
3.BALAKRISHNAN G
-
4.MURUGESAN G
-
5.SELLAPPAN G
-
6.PANDIAN M
-
7.BHARATHI M
-
8.HARIRAMAN B
Case History
-
17-Mar-2026
Next hearingPending
-
10-Mar-2026
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
In O.S. No. 78/2026 before the Special Subordinate Judge (LAOP Cases) at Arakkonam, the deposition of Plaintiff's witness PW-2 (Jeyashankar, age 55) was recorded on 10.03.2026. The witness was cross-examined by the defendants regarding property ownership claims, a will document allegedly created 13 years prior, and disputed possession of the property. The cross-examination of the witness concluded; no re-examination was conducted by the plaintiff's counsel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Mar-2026
Part Heard
Special Subordinate Judge(LAOP),Arakkonam
-
05-Mar-2026
Part Heard
Special Subordinate Judge(LAOP),Arakkonam
-
26-Feb-2026
Part Heard
Special Subordinate Judge(LAOP),Arakkonam
-
09-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Jan-2021
Case filed
Registration No. 78/2026
In O.S. No. 78/2026 before the Special Subordinate Judge (LAOP Cases) at Arakkonam, the deposition of Plaintiff's witness PW-2 (Jeyashankar, age 55) was recorded on 10.03.2026. The witness was cross-examined by the defendants regarding property ownership claims, a will document allegedly created 13 years prior, and disputed possession of the property. The cross-examination of the witness concluded; no re-examination was conducted by the plaintiff's counsel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts