GODHAVARI vs VANAJA AND 15 OHTERS — 291/2022

Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section U/s.37(2), 27(C), O7,R1,2,. Status: Enquiry. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNTM010069612022

Enquiry

Next Hearing

04th June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

2265/2022

Filing Date

19-12-2022

Registration No

291/2022

Registration Date

20-12-2022

Court

District and Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai

Judge

1-Principal District & Sessions Judge

Acts & Sections

CodeofCivilProcedure Section U/s.37(2), 27(C), O7,R1,2,

Petitioner(s)

GODHAVARI

Adv. THIRU.P. ARUNMOGAN

Respondent(s)

VANAJA AND 15 OHTERS

DHAYANIDHI

SASIKALA

SUBHA

SURIYA

DURGA BHAI

BABU

KAVERI

NALINA

PRABHU

BHARATHI

THE ASSOCIATE REGISTRAR OFFICER

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR ADMINISTRATION

THE DISTRICT GOVERNOR

THE COMMISSIONER

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District & Sessions Judge

07-04-2026

Enquiry

10-03-2026

Enquiry

18-02-2026

Enquiry

28-01-2026

Enquiry

10-12-2025

Enquiry

Interim Orders

23-04-2025
Fair Order
07-04-2026
Copy of Deposition

Summary In this civil suit (O.S. No. 291/2022) before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, the court ruled on a property dispute involving sections 12-16 of a property deed. The court found that sections 12-16 are unrelated to the plaintiff's claim and dismissed the objections raised against these sections, holding that they are governed by state rules and judicial precedent. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments against sections 12-16 as not sustainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary In this civil suit (O.S. No. 291/2022) before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, the court ruled on a property dispute involving sections 12-16 of a property deed. The court found that sections 12-16 are unrelated to the plaintiff's claim and dismissed the objections raised against these sections, holding that they are governed by state rules and judicial precedent. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments against sections 12-16 as not sustainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case