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
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
Petitioner(s)
Kanniappan
Adv. Thiru. K. Vivekanandan
Respondent(s)
Settu
Kannan
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Principal District Munsif,Cheyyar
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 07-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 25-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 03-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
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.
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
Explore other courts