Elumalai @ Palayam vs Jothi — 91/2022
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 27(c). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTR200001822022
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
184/2022
Filing Date
02-12-2022
Registration No
91/2022
Registration Date
02-12-2022
Court
District Munsif Court, Ponneri
Judge
1-District Munsif, Ponneri
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Elumalai @ Palayam
Adv. R. Krishnaswamy
Bhavani
Menagi
Respondent(s)
Jothi
Saravanan
Mathi
Sharmila
Sumathi
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif, Ponneri
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 26-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 16-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 05-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: This is a District Civil Court order from Panneri dated 26.02.2026 in case no. A.V. 91/2022 regarding a property partition dispute. The court examined witness PW1 (Pannuswamy) and conducted cross-examination on matters relating to property division between parties, specifically concerning land distribution and earlier settlements made in 1973 and 1990. The examination revealed conflicting testimonies regarding the exact area allocations (96 cents to different parties) and supporting documents. The court found deficiencies in documentary evidence and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's claims regarding property rights, noting that no settlement deed or partition document was properly filed to support the partition claim. The hearing concluded at 11:41 a.m. on 26.02.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: This is a District Civil Court order from Panneri dated 26.02.2026 in case no. A.V. 91/2022 regarding a property partition dispute. The court examined witness PW1 (Pannuswamy) and conducted cross-examination on matters relating to property division between parties, specifically concerning land distribution and earlier settlements made in 1973 and 1990. The examination revealed conflicting testimonies regarding the exact area allocations (96 cents to different parties) and supporting documents. The court found deficiencies in documentary evidence and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's claims regarding property rights, noting that no settlement deed or partition document was properly filed to support the partition claim. The hearing concluded at 11:41 a.m. on 26.02.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts