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
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
Petitioner(s)
Raja agent Karthik
Adv. Mr. V.Arasu
Respondent(s)
Saraswathi
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Subordinate Judge
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-06-2026 | Evidence |
| 17-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 02-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
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.
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
Explore other courts