Raja agent Karthik vs Saraswathi — 204/2023

Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section or7 ru1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNTV140015602023

Evidence

Next Hearing

16th June 2026

Filing Number

882/2023

Filing Date

19-10-2023

Registration No

204/2023

Registration Date

19-10-2023

Court

SubCourt, Thiruthuraipoondi

Judge

4-Subordinate Judge

Acts & Sections

CodeofCivilProcedure Section or7 ru1

Petitioner(s)

Raja agent Karthik

Adv. Mr. V.Arasu

Respondent(s)

Saraswathi

Hearing History

Judge: 4-Subordinate Judge

02-06-2026

Evidence

17-04-2026

Evidence

06-04-2026

Evidence

13-03-2026

Evidence

02-03-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

17-06-2025
Deposition
14-10-2025
Deposition
02-12-2025
Deposition

Case Summary: O.S. 204/2023 Court: Subordinate Court, Thiruthuraipoondi Date: 02.12.2025 The court examined cross-examination of the defendant's witness in a property dispute involving an agreement dated 08.01.2021 between petitioner Raja (agent Karthik) and respondent Saraswathi. The witness testified regarding the agreement's stipulation that registration must occur within six months, claims of repeated requests during COVID-19, and allegations that the defendant failed to provide registration despite promised extensions. The court found the agreement was made with intent to defraud the defendant, lacking clarity on ownership rights, purchase price refund conditions, and genuine intent to sell at the stated price. The court declared the agreement void and non-enforceable, holding it cannot stand. No cross-examination by the other party was conducted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: O.S. 204/2023 Court: Subordinate Court, Thiruthuraipoondi Date: 02.12.2025 The court examined cross-examination of the defendant's witness in a property dispute involving an agreement dated 08.01.2021 between petitioner Raja (agent Karthik) and respondent Saraswathi. The witness testified regarding the agreement's stipulation that registration must occur within six months, claims of repeated requests during COVID-19, and allegations that the defendant failed to provide registration despite promised extensions. The court found the agreement was made with intent to defraud the defendant, lacking clarity on ownership rights, purchase price refund conditions, and genuine intent to sell at the stated price. The court declared the agreement void and non-enforceable, holding it cannot stand. No cross-examination by the other party was conducted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

SubCourt, Thiruthuraipoondi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case