Pappathi vs Mylsamy Advocate - Vadivelsamy P — 13/2023
Case under Suits Valuation Act Section 25dand27C. Status: Part Heard. Next hearing: 17th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTI140000172023
Next Hearing
17th March 2026
Filing Number
17/2023
Filing Date
05-01-2023
Registration No
13/2023
Registration Date
09-01-2023
Court
District Munsif Court, Kangeyam
Judge
1-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Pappathi
Adv. Boobathy B
Arumugam
Adv. Boobathy B
Jayamani
Adv. Boobathy B
Nataraj
Adv. Boobathy B
Moganambal
Adv. Boobathy B
Krishnaveni
Adv. Boobathy B
Palanisamy Gounder
Adv. Boobathy B
Palaniyamal
Adv. Boobathy B
Poongothai
Adv. Boobathy B
Kalaivani
Adv. Boobathy B
Baby
Adv. Boobathy B
Respondent(s)
Mylsamy Advocate - Vadivelsamy P
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 05-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 02-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 23-02-2026 | Part Heard |
| 16-02-2026 | Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary This is a property dispute case (O.S. No. 13/2023) from the District Civil Court, Kangayam, decided on March 5, 2026. The court examined witness testimony regarding rights of way and property boundaries between adjacent plots (No. 572 and 573). The court rejected several claims made by the plaintiffs (heirs of Chinna Kaunder) regarding access rights and ownership boundaries, finding that the defendants (heirs of Palaniswamy and Nachimuththu Kaunder) have no recorded title over plot 572 and therefore cannot prevent passage from plot 572 to plot 573. The case was decided on merits based on cross-examination of witnesses and documentary evidence regarding partition deeds from 1919 and 1958. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This is a property dispute case (O.S. No. 13/2023) from the District Civil Court, Kangayam, decided on March 5, 2026. The court examined witness testimony regarding rights of way and property boundaries between adjacent plots (No. 572 and 573). The court rejected several claims made by the plaintiffs (heirs of Chinna Kaunder) regarding access rights and ownership boundaries, finding that the defendants (heirs of Palaniswamy and Nachimuththu Kaunder) have no recorded title over plot 572 and therefore cannot prevent passage from plot 572 to plot 573. The case was decided on merits based on cross-examination of witnesses and documentary evidence regarding partition deeds from 1919 and 1958. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts