P. Ramamurthy vs madavaiah Advocate - V.S.Velayudham — 60/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section u/s 27(c). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTR210000702021
Next Hearing
01st June 2026
Filing Number
109/2021
Filing Date
03-09-2021
Registration No
60/2021
Registration Date
03-09-2021
Court
District Munsif Court, Tiruttani
Judge
2-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
P. Ramamurthy
Adv. C.A. Natarajan
Respondent(s)
madavaiah Advocate - V.S.Velayudham
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 10-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 01-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 23-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 60/2021 District Munsif Court, Tirutani | Date: March 4, 2026 In this property dispute, petitioner P. Ramamurthy (age 66, farmer) sought a right of way over Schedule B property claimed by respondent V.S. Velayudham. Ramamurthy testified that he has used a 5-foot pathway along Schedule A property for 25-30 years to access his land, and claims entitlement to a right of way through Schedule B property. The respondent's revenue documents show the Schedule B property in the respondent's name. The court recorded Ramamurthy's testimony regarding boundary disputes, construction of boundary walls, and his historical use of the pathway. The case was adjourned for further cross-examination of the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 60/2021 District Munsif Court, Tirutani | Date: March 4, 2026 In this property dispute, petitioner P. Ramamurthy (age 66, farmer) sought a right of way over Schedule B property claimed by respondent V.S. Velayudham. Ramamurthy testified that he has used a 5-foot pathway along Schedule A property for 25-30 years to access his land, and claims entitlement to a right of way through Schedule B property. The respondent's revenue documents show the Schedule B property in the respondent's name. The court recorded Ramamurthy's testimony regarding boundary disputes, construction of boundary walls, and his historical use of the pathway. The case was adjourned for further cross-examination of the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts