Tamizharasi and 3 others vs Subramania nadar Advocate - A.Dinakaran Daniel Devadoss — 1/2024
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section Or.7,R.1. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTS050000022024
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2/2024
Filing Date
02-01-2024
Registration No
1/2024
Registration Date
02-01-2024
Court
Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi
Judge
6-Principal District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Tamizharasi and 3 others
Adv. Tr.S.Pandiarajan
Alli pappa
Adv. Tr.S.Pandiarajan
Chidambaram
Adv. Tr.S.Pandiarajan
Arulraj
Adv. Tr.S.Pandiarajan
Respondent(s)
Subramania nadar Advocate - A.Dinakaran Daniel Devadoss
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Principal District Munsif
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 26-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 26-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 18-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary This is a witness deposition (DW2) in O.S. No. 1/2024 before the Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, dated 18.02.2026. The witness testified regarding a land mutation order (Document No. 684) and questioned its validity, arguing that the document was obtained through fraudulent means and that the mutation order should not be valid. The court examined documentary evidence including UDR certificates, mutation receipts, and online registration records, and the witness was cross-examined by the plaintiff's counsel on the authenticity of these documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This is a witness deposition (DW2) in O.S. No. 1/2024 before the Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, dated 18.02.2026. The witness testified regarding a land mutation order (Document No. 684) and questioned its validity, arguing that the document was obtained through fraudulent means and that the mutation order should not be valid. The court examined documentary evidence including UDR certificates, mutation receipts, and online registration records, and the witness was cross-examined by the plaintiff's counsel on the authenticity of these documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts