Palaniappan. S vs The District Collector and 4 others Advocate - Govt. Pleader — 200119/2018
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 27(c). Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSA170001472018
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
200119/2018
Filing Date
25-09-2018
Registration No
200119/2018
Registration Date
25-09-2018
Court
District Munisf Court, Mettur
Judge
2-District Munsif, Mettur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Palaniappan. S
Adv. Thiru.P.V.Mohan Prabu
Respondent(s)
The District Collector and 4 others Advocate - Govt. Pleader
The Sub-Collector
Adv. Govt. Pleader
The Tahsildar
Adv. Govt. Pleader
The Special Tahsildar
Adv. Govt. Pleader
Venkatachalam. M
Adv. Exparte
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif, Mettur
IA Pending
IA Pending
Amendment
IA Pending
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 23-02-2026 | IA Pending |
| 13-02-2026 | Amendment |
| 27-01-2026 | IA Pending |
| 17-12-2025 | IA Pending |
Interim Orders
Case Summary This is a property/land dispute case from the Madurai District Civil Court (Case No. 119/2018) dated 26.04.2024. The court rejected the plaintiff's request to deny a patta (property deed) to the 5th defendant, finding that defendants 1-4 are not parties to the underlying dispute and should not be affected by the relief sought. The court upheld the 5th defendant's right to use a common 20-foot pathway shared between properties, though noting the defendant cannot obstruct or encroach upon it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary This is a property/land dispute case from the Madurai District Civil Court (Case No. 119/2018) dated 26.04.2024. The court rejected the plaintiff's request to deny a patta (property deed) to the 5th defendant, finding that defendants 1-4 are not parties to the underlying dispute and should not be affected by the relief sought. The court upheld the 5th defendant's right to use a common 20-foot pathway shared between properties, though noting the defendant cannot obstruct or encroach upon it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts