Saraswathi and 3 Others vs Sripathy and 9 Others — 32/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(b),27(c),25(d),25(c). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTM070001482022
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
Filing Number
255/2022
Filing Date
12-10-2022
Registration No
32/2023
Registration Date
10-04-2023
Court
District Munsif Court, Arani
Judge
2-District Munsif,Arani
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Saraswathi and 3 Others
Adv. S.Tamil Selvan (Chennai)
Devi
P. Kumudhavalli
R. Selvaraj
Respondent(s)
Sripathy and 9 Others
Krishore
Senthikumar
Kumar
The District Collector
The District Revenue Officer,
The Revenue Divisional Officer,
The Thasildar
The Taluk Surveyor
The Village Administrative Officer
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif,Arani
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-06-2026 | Evidence |
| 27-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 24-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 20-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 17-04-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
In O.S. 32/2023, the District Munsif, Arni heard testimony from P.W.1 (a 54-year-old witness) regarding a property dispute under Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act, 1969. The court found the plaintiff's claims regarding land ownership and alleged unauthorized property transfers to lack sufficient documentary evidence, particularly regarding certificates referenced as Exhibits 4 and 5, and rejected key claims about the defendant's possession. The cross-examination of the witnesses (5-10) revealed contradictions and unreliability. The court dismissed the suit, finding the evidence insufficient to establish the plaintiff's right to the reliefs sought. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
In O.S. 32/2023, the District Munsif, Arni heard testimony from P.W.1 (a 54-year-old witness) regarding a property dispute under Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act, 1969. The court found the plaintiff's claims regarding land ownership and alleged unauthorized property transfers to lack sufficient documentary evidence, particularly regarding certificates referenced as Exhibits 4 and 5, and rejected key claims about the defendant's possession. The cross-examination of the witnesses (5-10) revealed contradictions and unreliability. The court dismissed the suit, finding the evidence insufficient to establish the plaintiff's right to the reliefs 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