Rajeswari 4 Ors vs Masanam 6 Ors — 49/2020
Status: Amendment. Next hearing: 26th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTL270001552020
Next Hearing
26th March 2026
Filing Number
78/2020
Filing Date
23-11-2020
Registration No
49/2020
Registration Date
23-11-2020
Court
Sub Court, Nanguneri
Judge
3-Sub-ordinate Judge
Petitioner(s)
Rajeswari 4 Ors
Adv. Thiru. T. Velmurugan
Perumal Sundari
Adv. Thiru. T. Velmurugan
Mariammal
Adv. Thiru. T. Velmurugan
Minor Suseela
Adv. Thiru. T. Velmurugan
Vasantha
Adv. Thiru. T. Velmurugan
Respondent(s)
Masanam 6 Ors
Thadiveeran
Selvapandi
Anthony Jegan
Kaja Uthuman
Sunitha Samuel
Valliammal
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Sub-ordinate Judge
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Amendment |
| 13-02-2026 | Amendment |
| 06-02-2026 | Amendment |
| 20-01-2026 | Amendment |
| 02-01-2026 | Amendment |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court dismissed the petition filed by the plaintiffs seeking to add the 11th defendant (a woman named Pannaarathi) as an additional party to Original Suit No. 49/2020. The Subordinate Judge held that while Pannaarathi may have an interest in the property dispute concerning agricultural land, adding her at this advanced stage of litigation would not be appropriate, as it would deprive the plaintiffs of a fair opportunity to prove their case. The court noted that all necessary parties should have been included from the beginning when the suit was filed for partition of property based on 1/2 share. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court dismissed the petition filed by the plaintiffs seeking to add the 11th defendant (a woman named Pannaarathi) as an additional party to Original Suit No. 49/2020. The Subordinate Judge held that while Pannaarathi may have an interest in the property dispute concerning agricultural land, adding her at this advanced stage of litigation would not be appropriate, as it would deprive the plaintiffs of a fair opportunity to prove their case. The court noted that all necessary parties should have been included from the beginning when the suit was filed for partition of property based on 1/2 share. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts