SURESH KUMAR vs MURTHY (Died) Advocate - V. Parthasarathy and A. VenuGopla — 67/2017
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(d),27(c). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 23rd March 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNTR210000742017
Next Hearing
23rd March 2026
Filing Number
74/2017
Filing Date
15-09-2017
Registration No
67/2017
Registration Date
15-09-2017
Court
District Munsif Court, Tiruttani
Judge
2-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SURESH KUMAR
Adv. G. Kamalakannan
Alexander
Adv. G. Kamalakannan
Respondent(s)
MURTHY (Died) Advocate - V. Parthasarathy and A. VenuGopla
Premavathy
Adv. A. Venugopal
Periyasamy
Adv. A. Venugopal
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence
Evidence
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 06-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 27-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 18-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 10-02-2026 | IA Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary: In this civil suit (A.V. No. 67/2017) before the District Court at Tiruthani regarding property ownership, the plaintiff (Alexander, age 35) filed a petition claiming ownership of agricultural land and seeking to transfer the patta (title deed) to his name. The plaintiff alleged his father sold the property to the second defendant in 2001 without his knowledge. The court recorded the plaintiff's cross-examination testimony wherein he acknowledged filing a police complaint in 2011 (CC No. 205/2011) and admitted significant delays in filing this civil suit, claiming ignorance of the sale transaction when he was merely 14 years old at the time. The court found that the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitations and his claims lack credibility due to contradictory statements and unexplained delays in pursuing his rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In this civil suit (A.V. No. 67/2017) before the District Court at Tiruthani regarding property ownership, the plaintiff (Alexander, age 35) filed a petition claiming ownership of agricultural land and seeking to transfer the patta (title deed) to his name. The plaintiff alleged his father sold the property to the second defendant in 2001 without his knowledge. The court recorded the plaintiff's cross-examination testimony wherein he acknowledged filing a police complaint in 2011 (CC No. 205/2011) and admitted significant delays in filing this civil suit, claiming ignorance of the sale transaction when he was merely 14 years old at the time. The court found that the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitations and his claims lack credibility due to contradictory statements and unexplained delays in pursuing his rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts