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
Next Hearing
01st June 2026
Filing Number
31/2024
Filing Date
01-02-2024
Registration No
24/2024
Registration Date
10-02-2024
Court
District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru
Judge
1-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gayathri
Adv. M. S. Rabelraj, B.A., B.L.,
Respondent(s)
Anbarasan Advocate - Mr. M. Murugaiyan D1, D3, D
Parimala
Siva prakasham
Adv. Mr. Murugaiyan
Prakash
Tamilselvi
Sugumar
Amarsing
Adv. Mr. Murugaiyan
Sri Kailashanathaswamy Temple through its administraion
Adv. V. Panchapakesan D8
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif
Trial
Trial
Trial
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Trial |
| 21-04-2026 | Trial |
| 08-04-2026 | Trial |
| 07-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 02-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts