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
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
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
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts