M.Srinivasan vs P.Jayalakshmi Ammal Advocate - EXPARTE — 77/2016
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 25(a),25(a),25(a),27(c). Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNVL230001982016
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
77/2016
Filing Date
22-02-2016
Registration No
77/2016
Registration Date
28-04-2016
Court
District Munsif Court, Katpadi
Judge
1-District Munsif,Katpadi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M.Srinivasan
Adv. BALU V
Respondent(s)
P.Jayalakshmi Ammal Advocate - EXPARTE
P RAGHU
Adv. EXPARTE
INDRA
Adv. EXPARTE
P KUMAR
Adv. EXPARTE
P CHINNA
Adv. EXPARTE
P GANDHI RAJ
Adv. EXPARTE
P PONNUSAMY
Adv. EXPARTE
N BABU
Adv. VIJAY V N
N NIRMALA
Adv. GUNASEKARAN S
P SUGANTHAN
DHANDAYUDHAPANI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif,Katpadi
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Trial
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 24-04-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 20-04-2026 | Trial |
| 18-04-2026 | Trial |
| 16-04-2026 | Trial |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: M. Srinivasan v. P. Jayalakshmi Ammal & Others (O.S. No. 77/2016) Outcome: Petition ALLOWED The District Munsif Court, Katpadi (April 1, 2024) granted M. Srinivasan's petition to implead two proposed parties—P. Sugandhan and N. Dhandayudhapani—as defendants 10 and 11 in the property dispute suit. The court found both proposed parties were necessary to the case because Sugandhan became the owner of adjacent property via a Settlement Deed dated November 27, 2015, and Dhandayudhapani held joint ownership of the disputed property, making their presence essential for complete adjudication and binding judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: M. Srinivasan v. P. Jayalakshmi Ammal & Others (O.S. No. 77/2016) Outcome: Petition ALLOWED The District Munsif Court, Katpadi (April 1, 2024) granted M. Srinivasan's petition to implead two proposed parties—P. Sugandhan and N. Dhandayudhapani—as defendants 10 and 11 in the property dispute suit. The court found both proposed parties were necessary to the case because Sugandhan became the owner of adjacent property via a Settlement Deed dated November 27, 2015, and Dhandayudhapani held joint ownership of the disputed property, making their presence essential for complete adjudication and binding judgment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts