Sengodan.K vs Muniappan, Advocate - RAMASAMY. R. — 200396/2009
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section UnderOrderVIIRules1to6ofC.P.C. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 24th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNSA080000392009
Next Hearing
24th March 2026
Filing Number
200396/2009
Filing Date
22-12-2009
Registration No
200396/2009
Registration Date
22-12-2009
Court
District Munsif Court, Sankari
Judge
2-District Munsif, Sankari
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sengodan.K
Adv. KASILINGAM K
Selvaraj.K
Adv. KASILINGAM K
Respondent(s)
Muniappan, Advocate - RAMASAMY. R.
Suganthi.N
Adv. CHRISTOPHER. S
Mervinkumar
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif, Sankari
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 23-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 04-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 27-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case No.: Original Case 396/2009 Court: Sangakkiri District Munsif Court Date: 18.04.2022 The court examined cross-examination testimony in a land dispute case involving property sale transactions. The plaintiff Selvaraj purchased 6 cents of land and 3/5th share of a well from Defendant 1 through registered documents (Survey No. 138/16), while Defendant 2 obtained a deed through a separate transaction. The court found contradictions in the plaintiff's testimony regarding the exact extent of land purchased and the validity of Defendant 2's claim, ultimately holding that the plaintiff's purchase is valid while Defendant 2's deed is questionable based on documentary evidence and witness statements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No.: Original Case 396/2009 Court: Sangakkiri District Munsif Court Date: 18.04.2022 The court examined cross-examination testimony in a land dispute case involving property sale transactions. The plaintiff Selvaraj purchased 6 cents of land and 3/5th share of a well from Defendant 1 through registered documents (Survey No. 138/16), while Defendant 2 obtained a deed through a separate transaction. The court found contradictions in the plaintiff's testimony regarding the exact extent of land purchased and the validity of Defendant 2's claim, ultimately holding that the plaintiff's purchase is valid while Defendant 2's deed is questionable based on documentary evidence and witness statements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts