Saroja (through power agent Muthu) vs Mariammal @ Rajathi — 115/2019

Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 37(2). Status: Stay. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNSV140001432019

Stay

Next Hearing

17th June 2026

Filing Number

115/2019

Filing Date

19-08-2013

Registration No

115/2019

Registration Date

19-08-2013

Court

Sub Court, Manamadurai

Judge

1-Sub Judge,Manamadurai

Acts & Sections

Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 37(2)

Petitioner(s)

Saroja (through power agent Muthu)

Adv. Mr.P.Athimoolam B.A.B.L.,

Respondent(s)

Mariammal @ Rajathi

Nagalakshmi

Muthuraja

Adv. Mr.T.Muthuramalingam

Murugan

Rajasekaran

Anandan

Adv. Mr.T.Muthuramalingam M.A.B.L.,

Sekar

Adv. Mr.M.Muthukumar B.Sc.B.L.,

Soundaram

Karunanithi

Adv. Mr.T.Muthuramalingam M.A.B.L.,

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Sub Judge,Manamadurai

16-04-2026

Stay

12-03-2026

Stay

20-02-2026

Evidence

19-01-2026

Stay

16-12-2025

Stay

Interim Orders

08-06-2023
20-04-2023
08-06-2023
30-06-2023
18-07-2023
07-08-2023
13-12-2023
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary: OS 115/2019 Case: Saroja (through power agent Muthu) v. Mariammal @ Rajathi, Nagalakshmi, and Muthuraja Court: District Court, Madurai (Judge: Dr. R. Rekha, B.A., B.L.) Date: 13 December 2023 Outcome: The petition was dismissed. The court rejected petitioner's claims regarding property ownership documents and signatures, finding insufficient grounds for the relief sought. The court determined that certain attestation documents (dated 26.07.2000 and 03.06.2000) lacked valid witness signatures and could not bind the parties. No costs were awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: OS 115/2019 Case: Saroja (through power agent Muthu) v. Mariammal @ Rajathi, Nagalakshmi, and Muthuraja Court: District Court, Madurai (Judge: Dr. R. Rekha, B.A., B.L.) Date: 13 December 2023 Outcome: The petition was dismissed. The court rejected petitioner's claims regarding property ownership documents and signatures, finding insufficient grounds for the relief sought. The court determined that certain attestation documents (dated 26.07.2000 and 03.06.2000) lacked valid witness signatures and could not bind the parties. No costs were awarded. 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

Sub Court, Manamadurai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case