SELVARAJ vs JEEVA (died) Advocate - C.A. Natarajan — 61/2012
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section U/O7R1CPC. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 30th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNTR210000572012
Next Hearing
30th April 2026
Filing Number
61/2012
Filing Date
17-04-2012
Registration No
61/2012
Registration Date
17-04-2012
Court
District Munsif Court, Tiruttani
Judge
2-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SELVARAJ
Adv. V. Subramani
John
Adv. V. Subramani
Respondent(s)
JEEVA (died) Advocate - C.A. Natarajan
Reeta
Yoburaj
Chandra (Died)
Kasthuri
Sigamani (died)
Jayachandran
Adv. C.A. Natarajan
Marriammal (died)
Selvi
Naleena
Vinoth
Rajalakshmi
Keniyammal
Lakshmi
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 02-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 23-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: The District Munsif, Tiruttani dismissed the petitioners' petition seeking fingerprint expert examination of a disputed sale deed dated 12.05.2000. The petitioners alleged that the 8th defendant impersonated the petitioners' mother Rajammal by using a forged thumbprint. The court found the petition dismissed because the petitioners failed to produce an admitted thumbprint impression of Rajammal for comparison and did not challenge the signatures of the father and sister on the contested deed, making fingerprint comparison impossible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The District Munsif, Tiruttani dismissed the petitioners' petition seeking fingerprint expert examination of a disputed sale deed dated 12.05.2000. The petitioners alleged that the 8th defendant impersonated the petitioners' mother Rajammal by using a forged thumbprint. The court found the petition dismissed because the petitioners failed to produce an admitted thumbprint impression of Rajammal for comparison and did not challenge the signatures of the father and sister on the contested deed, making fingerprint comparison impossible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts