ARUMUGASAMY AND 3 OTHERS vs PAPPA KANI AND 26 OTHERS — 92/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7R1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTS070002132021
Filing Number
186/2021
Filing Date
22-Mar-2021
Registration No
92/2021
Registration Date
05-Apr-2021
Court
Sub Court, Sankarankovil
Judge
1-Sub Judge
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.ARUMUGASAMY AND 3 OTHERS
Adv. S KARUPPASAMY
-
2.MAHENDRAN
-
3.MURUGAN
-
4.PASUNKILI
Respondent(s)
-
1.PAPPA KANI AND 26 OTHERS
-
2.PAPPA KANI
-
3.SAMUTHIRAKANI
-
4.PANNERSELVAM
-
5.PUSHPAM
-
6.SELVARAJ
-
7.TIRUMALAIKUMAR
-
8.POONKODI
-
9.MURUGESWARI
-
10.POOMARIAMAL
-
11.PAVUNRAJ
-
12.KADARKARAI
-
13.VALLIYAMMAL
-
14.NANTHEESWARAN
-
15.MARIAMMAL
-
16.SEETHALAKSHMI
-
17.CHELLA POO
-
18.GANESAN
-
19.DEIVANAIAMMAL
-
20.KUZHANTHAIVELU
-
21.AMARAVATHI
-
22.VIJAYALAKSHMI
-
23.ARUNACHALAM
-
24.VINAYAGAM
-
25.GENGADEVI
-
26.PARANTHAMAN
-
27.PUSHPAM
-
28.PONRAJ
Case History
-
24-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
10-Jun-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
Case Summary: O.S. No. 92/2021 Date: 10.06.2026 Court: Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil Outcome: Petition dismissed. The court rejected the petitioner's claim for partition of 52 cents of land within a 1 acre 56 cent property. The judge found that defendants 10-14 have no rights to the disputed land, which belonged to the petitioner's father. However, the petition was dismissed as improperly constituted due to non-joinder of necessary parties from an earlier related suit (O.S. 72/2010), particularly regarding claims affecting 87 cents of land held by other family members. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Jun-2026
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
27-Apr-2026
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
10-Apr-2026
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
18-Mar-2026
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
03-Mar-2026
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
23-Feb-2026
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
09-Feb-2026
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
04-Feb-2026
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
09-Jan-2026
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
12-Dec-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
01-Dec-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
14-Nov-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
29-Oct-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
15-Oct-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
24-Sep-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
10-Sep-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
22-Aug-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
06-Aug-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
22-Jul-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
10-Jul-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
10-Jul-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
07-Jul-2025
Trial
Sub Judge
-
25-Jun-2025
Trial
Sub Judge
-
21-Jun-2025
Trial
Sub Judge
-
10-Jun-2025
Trial
Sub Judge
-
20-Mar-2025
List / Special List
Sub Judge
-
21-Jan-2025
Trial
Sub Judge
-
23-Oct-2024
Trial
Sub Judge
-
10-Jul-2024
Trial
Sub Judge
-
24-Apr-2024
Trial
Sub Judge
-
24-Jan-2024
Trial
Sub Judge
-
24-Nov-2023
Appearance
Sub Judge
-
01-Nov-2023
Additional Written Statement
Sub Judge
-
27-Sep-2023
Additional Written Statement
Sub Judge
-
05-Jul-2023
Written Statement
Sub Judge
-
19-Apr-2023
Written Statement
Sub Judge
-
02-Mar-2023
Written Statement
Sub Judge
-
23-Feb-2023
Amendment
Sub Judge
-
17-Feb-2023
Amendment
Sub Judge
-
25-Jan-2023
Amendment
Sub Judge
-
09-Dec-2022
Amendment
Sub Judge
-
09-Nov-2022
Amendment
Sub Judge
-
11-Oct-2022
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
Sub Judge
-
28-Sep-2022
Steps
Sub Judge
-
24-Aug-2022
Steps
Sub Judge
-
20-Jul-2022
Steps
Sub Judge
-
22-Jun-2022
Steps
Sub Judge
-
20-Apr-2022
Steps
Sub Judge
-
11-Feb-2022
Written Statement
Sub Judge
-
17-Dec-2021
Written Statement
Sub Judge
-
10-Nov-2021
Written Statement
Sub Judge
-
17-Sep-2021
Batta
Sub Judge
-
28-Jul-2021
Written Statement
Sub Judge
-
18-Jun-2021
Issue of Service
Sub Judge
-
05-Apr-2021
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Mar-2021
Case filed
Registration No. 92/2021
Case Summary: O.S. No. 92/2021 Date: 10.06.2026 Court: Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil Outcome: Petition dismissed. The court rejected the petitioner's claim for partition of 52 cents of land within a 1 acre 56 cent property. The judge found that defendants 10-14 have no rights to the disputed land, which belonged to the petitioner's father. However, the petition was dismissed as improperly constituted due to non-joinder of necessary parties from an earlier related suit (O.S. 72/2010), particularly regarding claims affecting 87 cents of land held by other family members. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts