Umasamy (Rep by her Sister/Power Agent Chithra) vs Pandiammal — 86/2024

Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 37(2),25(d),25(d). Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNSV010022572024

IA Pending

Next Hearing

18th June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

368/2024

Filing Date

21-06-2024

Registration No

86/2024

Registration Date

12-07-2024

Court

District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIVAGANGAI

Acts & Sections

COURT FEES ACT, 1870 Section 37(2),25(d),25(d)

Petitioner(s)

Umasamy (Rep by her Sister/Power Agent Chithra)

Adv. RAJA AMUTHAN.M.

Chithra

Respondent(s)

Pandiammal

Saravanan

Pandikannan

Santha

Kaleeswari

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIVAGANGAI

10-04-2026

IA Pending

10-03-2026

IA Pending

04-03-2026

IA Pending

27-02-2026

Evidence

13-02-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

06-02-2026
Copy of deposition

Summary Case OS.No 86/2024 | Munsiff Court, Chidambaram | Date: 06.02.2026 The court examined witness PW.2 (Lakshmanan) regarding a property dispute involving agricultural land. The witness testified about the ownership and possession of the disputed land, its location in Arasinkamapatti village, and the claimants (Chitra, Umaswami, and Harwanan). The witness confirmed limited knowledge of property details and stated that defendants purchased the land, though he lacked direct knowledge of the transaction. Order: The court found the witness's testimony credible and admitted his statement into the record. The case proceeds for further examination and evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary Case OS.No 86/2024 | Munsiff Court, Chidambaram | Date: 06.02.2026 The court examined witness PW.2 (Lakshmanan) regarding a property dispute involving agricultural land. The witness testified about the ownership and possession of the disputed land, its location in Arasinkamapatti village, and the claimants (Chitra, Umaswami, and Harwanan). The witness confirmed limited knowledge of property details and stated that defendants purchased the land, though he lacked direct knowledge of the transaction. Order: The court found the witness's testimony credible and admitted his statement into the record. The case proceeds for further examination and evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case