Maragatham and 3 others vs T.R.Gunaseelan Advocate - SIVAPRAKASHAM. S. — 1/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section u/o6. Status: Additional Counter. Next hearing: 30th March 2026.
RLTOP - Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenant Original Petition
CNR: TNSA170000552022
Next Hearing
30th March 2026
Filing Number
84/2022
Filing Date
17-03-2022
Registration No
1/2022
Registration Date
04-04-2022
Court
District Munisf Court, Mettur
Judge
2-District Munsif, Mettur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Maragatham and 3 others
Adv. KAMARAJ. S.
Karthikeyani
Adv. KAMARAJ. S.
Sripriya
Adv. KAMARAJ. S.
Ranganayaki
Adv. KAMARAJ. S.
Respondent(s)
T.R.Gunaseelan Advocate - SIVAPRAKASHAM. S.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif, Mettur
Additional Counter
Amendment
Amendment
Appearance
Appearance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | Additional Counter |
| 11-02-2026 | Amendment |
| 08-01-2026 | Amendment |
| 08-12-2025 | Appearance |
| 11-11-2025 | Appearance |
Interim Orders
This is a cross-examination order from the District Munsiff Court, Madurai (Case No. R.L.T.O.P.No.1/2022, dated 11.10.2023) in a property dispute involving a dilapidated residential building. The court examined the defendant's testimony regarding the property's condition, ownership history (originally granted to Vengataswamy, then inherited by Kumaresan, and subsequently his heirs Markatha, Karthikeyin, and Sripriya), and the structural modifications made over 30 years. The order documents the defendant's responses confirming the property details, inheritance chain, and current occupancy arrangement with one portion rented as a shop, but does not contain a substantive judgment or final order on the petition itself. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a cross-examination order from the District Munsiff Court, Madurai (Case No. R.L.T.O.P.No.1/2022, dated 11.10.2023) in a property dispute involving a dilapidated residential building. The court examined the defendant's testimony regarding the property's condition, ownership history (originally granted to Vengataswamy, then inherited by Kumaresan, and subsequently his heirs Markatha, Karthikeyin, and Sripriya), and the structural modifications made over 30 years. The order documents the defendant's responses confirming the property details, inheritance chain, and current occupancy arrangement with one portion rented as a shop, but does not contain a substantive judgment or final order on the petition itself. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts