Tamizharasi and 3 others vs Subramania nadar Advocate - A.Dinakaran Daniel Devadoss — 1/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Or.7,R.1. Status: IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.

IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending Next hearing 08-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNTS050000022024

Filing Number

2/2024

Filing Date

02-Jan-2024

Registration No

1/2024

Registration Date

02-Jan-2024

Court

Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi

Judge

6-Principal District Munsif

Last updated 10-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Or.7,R.1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Tamizharasi and 3 others

    Adv. Tr.S.Pandiarajan

  2. 2.Alli pappa

    Adv. Tr.S.Pandiarajan

  3. 3.Chidambaram

    Adv. Tr.S.Pandiarajan

  4. 4.Arulraj

    Adv. Tr.S.Pandiarajan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Subramania nadar Advocate - A.Dinakaran Daniel Devadoss

Case History

  1. 08-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 20-Apr-2026

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Principal District Munsif

  3. 26-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Principal District Munsif

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Principal District Munsif

  5. 26-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Principal District Munsif

  6. 18-Feb-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    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.

  7. 18-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif

  8. 12-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif

  9. 28-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif

  10. 23-Jan-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  11. 23-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif

  12. 17-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif

  13. 18-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif

  14. 22-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif

  15. 08-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif

  16. 15-Sep-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  17. 15-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif

  18. 29-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif

  19. 23-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Munsif

  20. 30-Apr-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Munsif

  21. 04-Feb-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Munsif

  22. 20-Jan-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  23. 20-Jan-2025

    Issues

    Principal District Munsif

  24. 28-Oct-2024

    Appearance

    Principal District Munsif

  25. 15-Oct-2024

    IA Pending

    Principal District Munsif

  26. 04-Oct-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Principal District Munsif

  27. 08-Jul-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Principal District Munsif

  28. 02-Jul-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal District Munsif

  29. 20-Jun-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal District Munsif

  30. 16-Apr-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal District Munsif

  31. 13-Mar-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal District Munsif

  32. 02-Feb-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal District Munsif

  33. 02-Jan-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  34. 02-Jan-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1/2024

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case