Rathinammal vs Palanisamy Gounder — 3/2022
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 27(c). Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTI100000052022
Next Hearing
02nd June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
4/2022
Filing Date
06-01-2022
Registration No
3/2022
Registration Date
06-01-2022
Court
District Munsif Court, Palladam
Judge
1-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rathinammal
Adv. Jegadeesh A
Kuppusamy
Respondent(s)
Palanisamy Gounder
Pongiyathaal
Eswaran
Saminathan
K.S.Kavin Karthikeyan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Ex-Parte Evidence
Written Statement
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 06-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 24-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 09-03-2026 | Ex-Parte Evidence | |
| 04-03-2026 | Written Statement |
Interim Orders
CASE SUMMARY The District Civil Court, Palladam dismissed an interim application (IA No. 2/2023) filed in Original Suit No. 3/2022 on February 13, 2026. The court found that the original suit, concerning property inheritance disputes dating back to 1975, was barred by the Limitation Act as it was filed 46 years after a deed was created, substantially exceeding the 3-year statutory period for challenging documents despite plaintiffs' claim of discovering the fraudulent deed only in 2021. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY The District Civil Court, Palladam dismissed an interim application (IA No. 2/2023) filed in Original Suit No. 3/2022 on February 13, 2026. The court found that the original suit, concerning property inheritance disputes dating back to 1975, was barred by the Limitation Act as it was filed 46 years after a deed was created, substantially exceeding the 3-year statutory period for challenging documents despite plaintiffs' claim of discovering the fraudulent deed only in 2021. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts