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.

IA Pending Next hearing 18-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNSV010022572024

Filing Number

368/2024

Filing Date

21-Jun-2024

Registration No

86/2024

Registration Date

12-Jul-2024

Court

District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai

Judge

1-Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

Last updated 10-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 37(2),25(d),25(d)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Umasamy (Rep by her Sister/Power Agent Chithra)

    Adv. RAJA AMUTHAN.M.

  2. 2.Chithra

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Pandiammal

  2. 2.Saravanan

  3. 3.Pandikannan

  4. 4.Santha

  5. 5.Kaleeswari

Case History

  1. 18-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  4. 04-Mar-2026

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  6. 13-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  7. 06-Feb-2026

    Copy of depositionView PDF

    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.

  8. 06-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  9. 30-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  10. 21-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  11. 18-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  12. 02-Dec-2025

    Copy of depositionView PDF

  13. 02-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  14. 14-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  15. 03-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  16. 12-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  17. 11-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  18. 17-Jul-2025

    Copy of depositionView PDF

  19. 17-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  20. 08-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  21. 20-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  22. 25-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  23. 06-Mar-2025

    Copy of depositionView PDF

  24. 06-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  25. 31-Jan-2025

    Issues

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  26. 17-Dec-2024

    Issues

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  27. 07-Nov-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  28. 04-Oct-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  29. 20-Sep-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  30. 16-Aug-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge, Sivagangai

  31. 12-Jul-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  32. 21-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 86/2024

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case