Kuthalingam vs Karuppaiah and 3 Ors. Advocate - J.M.Iruthayaraj — 363/2019

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section Or7R1. Status: Judgement. Next hearing: 26th March 2026.

Judgement Next hearing 26-Mar-2026 this date has passed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNTS060000852025

Filing Number

86/2025

Filing Date

25-Oct-2019

Registration No

363/2019

Registration Date

25-Oct-2019

Court

Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi

Judge

7-Additional District Munsif

Last updated 12-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section Or7R1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Kuthalingam

    Adv. Tr.S.Murugan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Karuppaiah and 3 Ors. Advocate - J.M.Iruthayaraj

  2. 2.Murugesan

    Adv. J.M.Iruthayaraj

  3. 3.Muppuli ammal

    Adv. J.M.Iruthayaraj

  4. 4.Bathirakali

    Adv. J.M.Iruthayaraj

Case History

  1. 26-Mar-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Additional District Munsif

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Additional District Munsif

  4. 05-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Additional District Munsif

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Additional District Munsif

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Additional District Munsif

  7. 17-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Additional District Munsif

  8. 12-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Additional District Munsif

  9. 10-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Additional District Munsif

  10. 04-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Additional District Munsif

  11. 03-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  12. 27-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  13. 20-Jan-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    In O.S. No. 363/2019, the court examined cross-examination testimony regarding a property dispute involving a 2013 sale deed and a 2009 agreement between the parties. The court found that the second defendant has legitimate water rights and that the plaintiff's claims lacked sufficient evidence, dismissing the plaintiff's contentions while recognizing the defendant's legal entitlements to the disputed property rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  14. 20-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  15. 03-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  16. 16-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  17. 05-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  18. 03-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  19. 26-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  20. 20-Nov-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  21. 20-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  22. 17-Nov-2025

    Appearance

    Additional District Munsif

  23. 14-Nov-2025

    IA Pending

    Additional District Munsif

  24. 12-Nov-2025

    IA Pending

    Additional District Munsif

  25. 11-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  26. 04-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  27. 29-Oct-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  28. 29-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  29. 27-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  30. 16-Oct-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  31. 16-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  32. 06-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  33. 25-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  34. 25-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  35. 18-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  36. 11-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  37. 06-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Munsif

  38. 31-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  39. 25-Oct-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. 363/2019

casestatus.in Summary

In O.S. No. 363/2019, the court examined cross-examination testimony regarding a property dispute involving a 2013 sale deed and a 2009 agreement between the parties. The court found that the second defendant has legitimate water rights and that the plaintiff's claims lacked sufficient evidence, dismissing the plaintiff's contentions while recognizing the defendant's legal entitlements to the disputed property rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case