Mathiyazhagan vs S. Sheik Mansoor — 123/2023
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section Or 7 r 1. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 09th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTV140004522023
Next Hearing
09th June 2026
Filing Number
228/2023
Filing Date
20-09-2021
Registration No
123/2023
Registration Date
28-10-2021
Court
SubCourt, Thiruthuraipoondi
Judge
4-Subordinate Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mathiyazhagan
Adv. Thiru.V.Arasu,B.A.,B.L.,
Respondent(s)
S. Sheik Mansoor
Sub Registrar, Tiruthuraipoondi
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Subordinate Judge
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 10-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 08-04-2026 | Amendment |
| 27-03-2026 | Amendment |
| 13-03-2026 | Amendment |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OS.123/2023 Mathiyazhagan v. S. Sheik Mansoor & Sub Registrar, Tiruthuraipoondi The Subordinate Court of Tiruthuraipoondi heard cross-examination of the first respondent on 27.06.2025. The court examined issues concerning property sale documentation, public authority powers, and registration procedures. The court held that: (1) the public authority document cannot be misused for personal benefit; (2) there is no connection between the property and the public authority document; (3) the respondent's rights over the property remain unaffected; and (4) Registration Act stamp duty provisions were properly followed. Further hearing is adjourned. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OS.123/2023 Mathiyazhagan v. S. Sheik Mansoor & Sub Registrar, Tiruthuraipoondi The Subordinate Court of Tiruthuraipoondi heard cross-examination of the first respondent on 27.06.2025. The court examined issues concerning property sale documentation, public authority powers, and registration procedures. The court held that: (1) the public authority document cannot be misused for personal benefit; (2) there is no connection between the property and the public authority document; (3) the respondent's rights over the property remain unaffected; and (4) Registration Act stamp duty provisions were properly followed. Further hearing is adjourned. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts