Gayathri vs Anbarasan Advocate - Mr. M. Murugaiyan D1, D3, D — 24/2024
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section U/Sec30. Status: Trial. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTJ150000232024
Filing Number
31/2024
Filing Date
01-Feb-2024
Registration No
24/2024
Registration Date
10-Feb-2024
Court
District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru
Judge
1-District Munsif
Last updated 18-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Gayathri
Adv. M. S. Rabelraj, B.A., B.L.,
Respondent(s)
-
1.Anbarasan Advocate - Mr. M. Murugaiyan D1, D3, D
-
2.Parimala
-
3.Siva prakasham
Adv. Mr. Murugaiyan
-
4.Prakash
-
5.Tamilselvi
-
6.Sugumar
-
7.Amarsing
Adv. Mr. Murugaiyan
-
8.Sri Kailashanathaswamy Temple through its administraion
Adv. V. Panchapakesan D8
Case History
-
01-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
29-Apr-2026
Trial
District Munsif
-
21-Apr-2026
Trial
District Munsif
-
08-Apr-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
08-Apr-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
Summary The District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru dismissed the interim application (I.A. No. 69 of 2024) filed in Original Suit No. 24 of 2024 on April 8, 2026. The plaintiff sought appointment of a court-appointed custodian for the disputed agricultural land to preserve it pending final judgment, alleging unlawful occupation by defendants 1-7. The court held that appointment of a custodian was not warranted since the land belongs to defendant 8 (a temple), the plaintiff lacks ownership rights, and defendants 1-7 are tenant cultivators paying regular dues. The application was dismissed without granting the custodial relief sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-Apr-2026
Trial
District Munsif
-
07-Apr-2026
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
02-Apr-2026
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
01-Apr-2026
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
30-Mar-2026
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
23-Mar-2026
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
11-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
11-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
11-Mar-2026
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
09-Mar-2026
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
07-Mar-2026
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
06-Mar-2026
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
12-Jan-2026
Trial
District Munsif
-
06-Dec-2025
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
06-Nov-2025
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
06-Oct-2025
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
25-Sep-2025
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
25-Aug-2025
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
District Munsif
-
14-Aug-2025
Steps
District Munsif
-
17-Jul-2025
Steps
District Munsif
-
10-Jun-2025
Written Statement
District Munsif
-
30-Apr-2025
Appearance
District Munsif
-
24-Apr-2025
Appearance
District Munsif
-
04-Apr-2025
Appearance
District Munsif
-
21-Mar-2025
Appearance
District Munsif
-
27-Jan-2025
Appearance
District Munsif
-
06-Nov-2024
Appearance
District Munsif
-
03-Oct-2024
Appearance
District Munsif
-
28-Aug-2024
Appearance
District Munsif
-
22-Aug-2024
Appearance
District Munsif
-
09-Jul-2024
Vakalat / Memo of Appearance
District Munsif
-
05-Jun-2024
Vakalat / Memo of Appearance
District Munsif
-
05-Apr-2024
Vakalat / Memo of Appearance
District Munsif
-
05-Mar-2024
Vakalat / Memo of Appearance
District Munsif
-
10-Feb-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
01-Feb-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 24/2024
Summary The District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru dismissed the interim application (I.A. No. 69 of 2024) filed in Original Suit No. 24 of 2024 on April 8, 2026. The plaintiff sought appointment of a court-appointed custodian for the disputed agricultural land to preserve it pending final judgment, alleging unlawful occupation by defendants 1-7. The court held that appointment of a custodian was not warranted since the land belongs to defendant 8 (a temple), the plaintiff lacks ownership rights, and defendants 1-7 are tenant cultivators paying regular dues. The application was dismissed without granting the custodial relief sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts