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
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
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
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
Appearance
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts