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

Arguments

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

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26Order7R1cpc

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

05-03-2026

Arguments

03-03-2026

Arguments

26-02-2026

Arguments

24-02-2026

Arguments

17-02-2026

Arguments

Interim Orders

28-10-2025
Copy of Deposition

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kilpennathur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case