Palaniappan. K vs Vaiyapuri. K and 9 others Advocate - Gurusamy. R — 200395/2012

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Or7rule1to6. Status: Part Heard. Next hearing: 24th March 2026.

OS - Original Suit (Title)

CNR: TNSA170001242012

Part Heard

Next Hearing

24th March 2026

Filing Number

200395/2012

Filing Date

23-11-2012

Registration No

200395/2012

Registration Date

23-11-2012

Court

District Munisf Court, Mettur

Judge

2-District Munsif, Mettur

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Or7rule1to6

Petitioner(s)

Palaniappan. K

Adv. BALAMURUGAN B

Respondent(s)

Vaiyapuri. K and 9 others Advocate - Gurusamy. R

Peramagounder. V

Adv. Gurusamy. R

Myili @ Mayil

Adv. Gurusamy. R

Ammasi. M (died)

Chinnaponnu. A

Duraisamy

Chinnathambi

Adv. Eswaran S

Mahalingam

Adv. Eswaran S

Premalatha

Jagadeesan

Hearing History

Judge: 2-District Munsif, Mettur

05-03-2026

Part Heard

25-02-2026

Part Heard

11-02-2026

Part Heard

09-02-2026

Appearance

30-01-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

05-03-2026
Copy of Deposition

Case Summary OS No. 395/2012 | District Civil Court, Mettur | Date: 05.03.2026 The court recorded the cross-examination testimony of Defense Witness 5 (Vijayakumar) regarding a property dispute involving two land parcels (14 cents in Survey No. 29/10B and 10 cents in Survey No. 28/1). The witness testified about family inheritance, land partition history, and claims that the properties belong to his family. The court accepted the cross-examination testimony and ruled that defendants 7 and 8 are bound by the witness statements provided. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary OS No. 395/2012 | District Civil Court, Mettur | Date: 05.03.2026 The court recorded the cross-examination testimony of Defense Witness 5 (Vijayakumar) regarding a property dispute involving two land parcels (14 cents in Survey No. 29/10B and 10 cents in Survey No. 28/1). The witness testified about family inheritance, land partition history, and claims that the properties belong to his family. The court accepted the cross-examination testimony and ruled that defendants 7 and 8 are bound by the witness statements provided. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District Munisf Court, Mettur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case