N.Nadarajan(Through his Power Agent K.Rajangam) vs M. Malar and 2 others — 92/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(A),27(c). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNSV060001072022
Next Hearing
06th June 2026
Filing Number
136/2022
Filing Date
26-09-2022
Registration No
92/2022
Registration Date
26-09-2022
Court
District Munsif Court, Devakkottai
Judge
2-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
N.Nadarajan(Through his Power Agent K.Rajangam)
Adv. Mr. N.Ramji
Respondent(s)
M. Malar and 2 others
C.Mahalingam
M.Pazhaniselvam
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 18-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 07-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 26-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 92/2022 Date: 12.03.2026 The court recorded the cross-examination of Witness 1 (Rajangam), the power agent of petitioner N. Nadarajan, in this property dispute case. The witness testified about the disputed "Thawa Saathu" (Survey No. 301/1) property, alleging that respondents illegally encroached by constructing a compound wall measuring 4.6 feet width and 109.5 feet length on the eastern boundary. The witness confirmed the petitioner's 50-year possession, supported the filing in 2020, and provided details about survey records and documentary evidence including photographs. The court examined contested issues regarding western boundary demarcation, the relevance of adjacent survey numbers, and the authenticity of the "Dharai Patta" (revenue document) showing 6.8 acres. No re-examination was permitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 92/2022 Date: 12.03.2026 The court recorded the cross-examination of Witness 1 (Rajangam), the power agent of petitioner N. Nadarajan, in this property dispute case. The witness testified about the disputed "Thawa Saathu" (Survey No. 301/1) property, alleging that respondents illegally encroached by constructing a compound wall measuring 4.6 feet width and 109.5 feet length on the eastern boundary. The witness confirmed the petitioner's 50-year possession, supported the filing in 2020, and provided details about survey records and documentary evidence including photographs. The court examined contested issues regarding western boundary demarcation, the relevance of adjacent survey numbers, and the authenticity of the "Dharai Patta" (revenue document) showing 6.8 acres. No re-examination was permitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts