Nangappan vs Sivakumar and 8 others Advocate - Govt., Pleader — 297/2011
Case under Suits Valuation Act Section U/s27C. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 23rd March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTI070001032011
Next Hearing
23rd March 2026
Filing Date
19-09-2011
Registration No
297/2011
Registration Date
19-09-2011
Court
District Munsif Court, Tiruppur
Judge
6-Principal District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Nangappan
Adv. A. Jagathis
Respondent(s)
Sivakumar and 8 others Advocate - Govt., Pleader
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Principal District Munsif
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 05-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 02-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 27-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: In Original Case No. 297/2011 before the Principal District Civil Court, Tiruppur, the court recorded the cross-examination of the witness (plaintiff) on 10 March 2026. The witness testified regarding a property dispute involving 3.25 acres in survey number 438/2, claiming 40 cents based on a partition deed dated 04.07.2006, but failed to produce original documents supporting this claim. The court found significant inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony regarding land measurements, the rightful beneficiaries, and the basis of the partition, ultimately rejecting key aspects of the case as legally unsustainable due to insufficient documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In Original Case No. 297/2011 before the Principal District Civil Court, Tiruppur, the court recorded the cross-examination of the witness (plaintiff) on 10 March 2026. The witness testified regarding a property dispute involving 3.25 acres in survey number 438/2, claiming 40 cents based on a partition deed dated 04.07.2006, but failed to produce original documents supporting this claim. The court found significant inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony regarding land measurements, the rightful beneficiaries, and the basis of the partition, ultimately rejecting key aspects of the case as legally unsustainable due to insufficient documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts