Minor geetha and another vs Kasi and 8 others — 194/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26Order7R1cpc. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 12th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTM240000152024
Next Hearing
12th March 2026
Filing Number
8/2024
Filing Date
05-08-2013
Registration No
194/2024
Registration Date
05-08-2013
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kilpennathur
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Minor geetha and another
Adv. C.Muthu
Respondent(s)
Kasi and 8 others
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,Kilpennathur
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 03-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 26-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 24-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 17-02-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Case Summary OS 194/2024 (Old OS 204/2013) - Cross-Examination (Witness DW2) The court conducted cross-examination of defendant witness Renuka regarding disputed land property matters. The court rejected several claims made by the witness regarding land divisions, mortgages, and property transfers involving survey number 55/2, finding inconsistencies in her testimony regarding land measurements, dates of transfer deeds, and the actual allocation of 21.5 cents to the plaintiff. The cross-examination revealed discrepancies in the witness's account of mortgage transactions and documented land divisions, which the court found unconvincing based on available evidence and documentary records. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary OS 194/2024 (Old OS 204/2013) - Cross-Examination (Witness DW2) The court conducted cross-examination of defendant witness Renuka regarding disputed land property matters. The court rejected several claims made by the witness regarding land divisions, mortgages, and property transfers involving survey number 55/2, finding inconsistencies in her testimony regarding land measurements, dates of transfer deeds, and the actual allocation of 21.5 cents to the plaintiff. The cross-examination revealed discrepancies in the witness's account of mortgage transactions and documented land divisions, which the court found unconvincing based on available evidence and documentary records. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts