M.S.Mahalingam and 3 others vs Pitchai and 1 other Advocate - THIRU.M.LINGESWARAN — 100034/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(b),27(c). Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNSV080000362017
Next Hearing
05th June 2026
Filing Number
100034/2017
Filing Date
06-03-2017
Registration No
100034/2017
Registration Date
06-03-2017
Court
Principal District Munsif Court, Manamadurai
Judge
1-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M.S.Mahalingam and 3 others
Adv. SUBBARAYAN.S
Prema
Mariyarajammal
Johny David
Respondent(s)
Pitchai and 1 other Advocate - THIRU.M.LINGESWARAN
Pancharajan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 24-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 22-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 17-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-04-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS No.34/2017 On 03.03.2026, during cross-examination of PW 3 (witness), the court examined disputed claims regarding property ownership and title deed (patta) transfer. The witness testified that the property deed was originally in the defendant's father's name when purchased, and the defendants transferred the patta based on a court order rather than voluntarily. The court found contradictions in the plaintiff's claims regarding prior legal actions and the blocking of access to the property. The court concluded the plaintiff's claim for relief cannot succeed and no further cross-examination is required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS No.34/2017 On 03.03.2026, during cross-examination of PW 3 (witness), the court examined disputed claims regarding property ownership and title deed (patta) transfer. The witness testified that the property deed was originally in the defendant's father's name when purchased, and the defendants transferred the patta based on a court order rather than voluntarily. The court found contradictions in the plaintiff's claims regarding prior legal actions and the blocking of access to the property. The court concluded the plaintiff's claim for relief cannot succeed and no further cross-examination is required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts