Sundarasan vs Prakash — 6/2021
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section U/o.7 R.1 ,U/s.151. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTV090000462021
Next Hearing
06th June 2026
Filing Number
25/2021
Filing Date
10-02-2021
Registration No
6/2021
Registration Date
12-02-2021
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Valangaiman
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sundarasan
Adv. Mr. D. Suresh, B.A.B.L.,
Respondent(s)
Prakash
Mr.Balaguru
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 10-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 23-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 03-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 6/2021 (Sundarasan v. Prakash and Mr. Balaguru) This is a civil property dispute heard in the District Civil and Criminal Court, Walajahabad on April 10, 2026. The defendant's witness (DW.1) testified regarding a disputed agricultural property and a sale agreement dated May 15, 1996 for Rs. 43,200. The witness testified that the plaintiff purchased the property on March 28, 1994, and the sale deed was executed on May 14, 1996. Key disputes included the timing of payment, property boundaries, and competing claims to the land. The court admitted the witness testimony into the record under Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1969, and the judge verified the statement as accurate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 6/2021 (Sundarasan v. Prakash and Mr. Balaguru) This is a civil property dispute heard in the District Civil and Criminal Court, Walajahabad on April 10, 2026. The defendant's witness (DW.1) testified regarding a disputed agricultural property and a sale agreement dated May 15, 1996 for Rs. 43,200. The witness testified that the plaintiff purchased the property on March 28, 1994, and the sale deed was executed on May 14, 1996. Key disputes included the timing of payment, property boundaries, and competing claims to the land. The court admitted the witness testimony into the record under Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1969, and the judge verified the statement as accurate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts