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

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

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

CodeofCivilProcedure Section Or.7,R.1

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

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

18-02-2026
Copy of Deposition

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case