Anna Selvam vs Saravanaperumal and 1 other — 126/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7R1CPC. Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 25th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTL210001362020
Next Hearing
25th March 2026
Filing Number
170/2020
Filing Date
16-10-2020
Registration No
126/2020
Registration Date
16-10-2020
Court
District Munsif Court, Nanguneri
Judge
2-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Anna Selvam
Adv. T. Velmurugan
Respondent(s)
Saravanaperumal and 1 other
Chella Perumal
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif
IA Pending
IA Pending
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 06-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 27-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 18-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 05-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Court Order Summary Case No.: 126/2020 Date: 27.02.2026 Court: Tamil Nadu (Original Case) The court examined witness Saravan Perumal's testimony regarding a property dispute in Pongulam village. The witness confirmed that three brothers (Penvaiya Nadan, Petchumanan Perumal, and Ilavarasu Perumal) jointly owned property that was divided equally into 1/3 shares each. The witness testified about water rights, wells, tank access, and agricultural usage of the disputed second property containing approximately 2 acres and 99 cents, with established water and electricity infrastructure. The court recorded extensive cross-examination regarding property boundaries, irrigation facilities, harvesting practices, and the witness's personal use and management of his allocated share over 25+ years. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Case No.: 126/2020 Date: 27.02.2026 Court: Tamil Nadu (Original Case) The court examined witness Saravan Perumal's testimony regarding a property dispute in Pongulam village. The witness confirmed that three brothers (Penvaiya Nadan, Petchumanan Perumal, and Ilavarasu Perumal) jointly owned property that was divided equally into 1/3 shares each. The witness testified about water rights, wells, tank access, and agricultural usage of the disputed second property containing approximately 2 acres and 99 cents, with established water and electricity infrastructure. The court recorded extensive cross-examination regarding property boundaries, irrigation facilities, harvesting practices, and the witness's personal use and management of his allocated share over 25+ years. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts