Sudalaimuthu nadar and 8 others vs Vasikaran and another Advocate - Tr.R.Madakkan — 128/2023
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section Or.7,R.1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTS050001902023
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
263/2023
Filing Date
01-06-2023
Registration No
128/2023
Registration Date
01-06-2023
Court
Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi
Judge
6-Principal District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sudalaimuthu nadar and 8 others
Adv. Tr.S.Pandiarajan
Kuthalinga Nadar
Adv. Tr.S.Pandiarajan
Subramanian
Adv. Tr.S.Pandiarajan
Paramasivan
Adv. Tr.S.Pandiarajan
Kuthalingam
Adv. Tr.S.Pandiarajan
Ganesan
Adv. Tr.S.Pandiarajan
Karthick kumar
Adv. Tr.S.Pandiarajan
Kannan
Adv. Tr.S.Pandiarajan
Manikandan
Adv. Tr.S.Pandiarajan
Respondent(s)
Vasikaran and another Advocate - Tr.R.Madakkan
Azhagumuthu
Adv. R. MADAKKAN
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Principal District Munsif
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 10-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 24-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: This is a cross-examination of the plaintiff (PW1-Paramsivam) in O.S. No. 128/2023 dated 24.02.2026 regarding a property dispute involving survey numbers 384A/2 and 384A/3. The plaintiff's testimony confirms ownership of 2/3 share in survey 384A/2 (53 cents total) and 10.5/14 cents in survey 384A/3; however, the court found that the plaintiff has no valid claim to the remaining land as it is held by other parties with valid deeds. No cross-examination from defendants is recorded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: This is a cross-examination of the plaintiff (PW1-Paramsivam) in O.S. No. 128/2023 dated 24.02.2026 regarding a property dispute involving survey numbers 384A/2 and 384A/3. The plaintiff's testimony confirms ownership of 2/3 share in survey 384A/2 (53 cents total) and 10.5/14 cents in survey 384A/3; however, the court found that the plaintiff has no valid claim to the remaining land as it is held by other parties with valid deeds. No cross-examination from defendants is recorded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts