Kanniappan vs Settu — 68/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 32,27(c). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNTM080000942024

Evidence

Next Hearing

05th June 2026

Filing Number

93/2024

Filing Date

24-06-2024

Registration No

68/2024

Registration Date

06-08-2024

Court

Principal District Munsif Court, Cheyyar

Judge

3-Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 32,27(c)

Petitioner(s)

Kanniappan

Adv. Thiru. K. Vivekanandan

Respondent(s)

Settu

Kannan

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar

17-04-2026

Evidence

07-04-2026

Evidence

25-03-2026

Evidence

13-03-2026

Evidence

03-03-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

25-03-2026
Copy of Deposition

Summary of Case 68/2024 (Kanniappan v. Settu and Kannan): This property dispute case, heard on March 25, 2026, involved petitioner Kanniappan (age 51) challenging land-related claims under the Indian Penal Code, 1969, Section 3. The court examined conflicting statements regarding property boundaries, access rights, water usage, and easement claims between the parties. The judgment dismissed the petitioner's allegations, finding that the respondents' assertions regarding shared land usage, communal harvesting practices, and the petitioner's obstruction of their easement rights were valid. The court upheld the respondents' entitlements to access and use the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 68/2024 (Kanniappan v. Settu and Kannan): This property dispute case, heard on March 25, 2026, involved petitioner Kanniappan (age 51) challenging land-related claims under the Indian Penal Code, 1969, Section 3. The court examined conflicting statements regarding property boundaries, access rights, water usage, and easement claims between the parties. The judgment dismissed the petitioner's allegations, finding that the respondents' assertions regarding shared land usage, communal harvesting practices, and the petitioner's obstruction of their easement rights were valid. The court upheld the respondents' entitlements to access and use the disputed property. 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

Principal District Munsif Court, Cheyyar All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case