Mani vs Kamalammal — 35/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 27(c). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 25th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTR210000372023
Next Hearing
25th March 2026
Filing Number
50/2023
Filing Date
04-08-2023
Registration No
35/2023
Registration Date
04-08-2023
Court
District Munsif Court, Tiruttani
Judge
2-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mani
Adv. G. Kamalakannan
Joshila
Adv. G. Kamalakannan
Respondent(s)
Kamalammal
Kirubakaran
David alias Porkalan
Kutti alias Anandaraj
Selvakumar
Danasekar
The Thasildhar, Tiruttani
Adv. Government Pleader
The District Collector, Thiruvallur
Adv. Government Pleader
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 27-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 18-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 04-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: In this District Munsif Court case (A.V. No. 35/2023) from Tirutani dated January 19, 2026, the court continued cross-examination of defendants 7 and 8 regarding a land dispute over plot number 307/6. The plaintiff claimed ownership based on property tax receipts, electricity bills, and other documents, while disputing the validity of a government eviction notice (P.B. Kemalaima). The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the documents establish valid ownership and dismissed the plaintiff's contention that defendants 7 and 8 should be removed from the case, upholding their proper inclusion in the dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In this District Munsif Court case (A.V. No. 35/2023) from Tirutani dated January 19, 2026, the court continued cross-examination of defendants 7 and 8 regarding a land dispute over plot number 307/6. The plaintiff claimed ownership based on property tax receipts, electricity bills, and other documents, while disputing the validity of a government eviction notice (P.B. Kemalaima). The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the documents establish valid ownership and dismissed the plaintiff's contention that defendants 7 and 8 should be removed from the case, upholding their proper inclusion in the dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts