G.Palanivel vs Kalaiyarasi and 6 others Advocate - L.Prabhakaran — 4/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section sec25(d). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 18th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTI140000052022
Next Hearing
18th March 2026
Filing Number
8/2022
Filing Date
05-01-2022
Registration No
4/2022
Registration Date
07-01-2022
Court
District Munsif Court, Kangeyam
Judge
1-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
G.Palanivel
Adv. E.S.Ranjith
Respondent(s)
Kalaiyarasi and 6 others Advocate - L.Prabhakaran
Minor Dhanusri
Adv. L.Prabhakaran
Minor Dhatchana
Adv. L.Prabhakaran
Palaniyammal
Adv. L.Prabhakaran
Usha Nandhini
Adv. L.Prabhakaran
Annakkodi
Adv. L.Prabhakaran
Tamilselvi
Adv. L.Prabhakaran
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 09-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 28-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 19-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: In Original Case No. 4/2022 before the District Civil Court, Kangayam, heard on September 17, 2025, the court recorded the cross-examination testimony of the 7th defendant regarding property transactions and partition of "Thava" lands. The court rejected the plaintiff's claims that defendants were responsible for typographical errors in the property documents (specifically the conversion of survey number 364/3L1A to 346/1) and found the defendants bear no liability for such clerical mistakes. The witness testimony was recorded, verified, and accepted by the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In Original Case No. 4/2022 before the District Civil Court, Kangayam, heard on September 17, 2025, the court recorded the cross-examination testimony of the 7th defendant regarding property transactions and partition of "Thava" lands. The court rejected the plaintiff's claims that defendants were responsible for typographical errors in the property documents (specifically the conversion of survey number 364/3L1A to 346/1) and found the defendants bear no liability for such clerical mistakes. The witness testimony was recorded, verified, and accepted by the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts