Veerasamy vs Loganathan Advocate - Vishwanath VA — 222/2024

Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 25(b), 25(d), 27(c). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 24-Jun-2026

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNVR080005372024

Filing Number

257/2024

Filing Date

19-Jun-2024

Registration No

222/2024

Registration Date

09-Jul-2024

Court

Additional District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar

Judge

1-Additional District Judge

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 25(b), 25(d), 27(c)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Veerasamy

    Adv. Ashokrajan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Loganathan Advocate - Vishwanath VA

  2. 2.R Sridharan

    Adv. Vishwanath VA

  3. 3.Dhamodharan

    Adv. Vishwanath VA

  4. 4.Sridevi

    Adv. Vishwanath VA

  5. 5.Manjula

    Adv. Vishwanath VA

Case History

  1. 24-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 17-Jun-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Judge

  3. 24-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Judge

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Judge

  5. 17-Apr-2026

    Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF

    Case Summary: 222/2024 Court: Additional District Court, Virudhunagar Date: 17.04.2026 Outcome: Cross-examination of defendant completed. The court examined disputes over a 6-acre property divided among three parties in 1944. The petitioner Veerasamy claimed ownership of 2 acres (north portion), while respondents Loganathan and others claimed adjacent 4-acre land. Court found petitioner's claims regarding property boundaries and possession to be unsubstantiated. The case involved competing claims over land documentation, with court questioning whether the "Thaava Satthu" (disputed 2-acre parcel) remained unplotted or was demarcated. The petition for relief was dismissed as the court found petitioner's evidence and arguments insufficient to establish his claimed rights over the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 17-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Judge

  7. 15-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Judge

  8. 06-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Judge

  9. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF

  10. 18-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Judge

  11. 04-Mar-2026

    Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF

  12. 04-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Judge

  13. 10-Feb-2026

    Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF

  14. 10-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Judge

  15. 12-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Judge

  16. 05-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Judge

  17. 08-Oct-2025

    Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF

  18. 08-Oct-2025

    Trial

    Additional District Judge

  19. 19-Sep-2025

    Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF

  20. 19-Sep-2025

    Trial

    Additional District Judge

  21. 09-Aug-2025

    Trial

    Additional District Judge

  22. 02-Aug-2025

    Issues

    Additional District Judge

  23. 19-Jul-2025

    Issues

    Additional District Judge

  24. 25-Jun-2025

    Issues

    Additional District Judge

  25. 04-Jun-2025

    Issues

    Additional District Judge

  26. 09-Apr-2025

    Issues

    Additional District Judge

  27. 04-Jan-2025

    Issues

    Additional District Judge

  28. 18-Dec-2024

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Additional District Judge

  29. 06-Nov-2024

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Additional District Judge

  30. 25-Sep-2024

    Issue of Service

    Additional District Judge

  31. 28-Aug-2024

    Issue of Service

    Additional District Judge

  32. 14-Aug-2024

    Issue of Process

    Additional District Judge

  33. 12-Aug-2024

    Appearance

    Additional District Judge

  34. 25-Jul-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  35. 19-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 222/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 222/2024 Court: Additional District Court, Virudhunagar Date: 17.04.2026 Outcome: Cross-examination of defendant completed. The court examined disputes over a 6-acre property divided among three parties in 1944. The petitioner Veerasamy claimed ownership of 2 acres (north portion), while respondents Loganathan and others claimed adjacent 4-acre land. Court found petitioner's claims regarding property boundaries and possession to be unsubstantiated. The case involved competing claims over land documentation, with court questioning whether the "Thaava Satthu" (disputed 2-acre parcel) remained unplotted or was demarcated. The petition for relief was dismissed as the court found petitioner's evidence and arguments insufficient to establish his claimed rights over the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case