Kaliammal vs M.Natarajan — 100107/2013

Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 25(b). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.

OS - Original Suit (Title)

CNR: TNTI100000852013

Arguments

Next Hearing

20th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

100107/2013

Filing Date

04-07-2013

Registration No

100107/2013

Registration Date

04-07-2013

Court

District Munsif Court, Palladam

Judge

1-District Munsif

Acts & Sections

CodeofCivilProcedure Section 25(b)

Petitioner(s)

Kaliammal

Adv. Rajan D S

Respondent(s)

M.Natarajan

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Munsif

17-04-2026

Arguments

07-04-2026

Arguments

01-04-2026

Arguments

24-03-2026

Evidence

16-03-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

16-03-2026
Copy of Deposition / Witness

This is a cross-examination (witness examination) record from a civil suit (Case No. 107/2013) in the District Civil Court, Palladam dated 16.03.2026. The court examined witness Palaniswamy's testimony regarding a property dispute involving land (Survey No. 89/2) allegedly purchased by Marappa Koundar. The judge found the witness's testimony unreliable and contradictory, noting he made inconsistent statements about events from 30 years prior and could not identify key parties. The court rejected the witness's credibility, concluding his testimony should be disregarded and cannot form the basis for any judgment in the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

This is a cross-examination (witness examination) record from a civil suit (Case No. 107/2013) in the District Civil Court, Palladam dated 16.03.2026. The court examined witness Palaniswamy's testimony regarding a property dispute involving land (Survey No. 89/2) allegedly purchased by Marappa Koundar. The judge found the witness's testimony unreliable and contradictory, noting he made inconsistent statements about events from 30 years prior and could not identify key parties. The court rejected the witness's credibility, concluding his testimony should be disregarded and cannot form the basis for any judgment in the case. 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

District Munsif Court, Palladam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case