Muthusamy and one other vs Chinnasamy — 29/2025
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 27(c). Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 17th July 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNVR230000632025
Filing Number
65/2025
Filing Date
21-Jan-2025
Registration No
29/2025
Registration Date
21-Jan-2025
Court
Sub Court, Rajapalayam
Judge
3-Sub Court,Rajapalayam
Last updated 01-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Muthusamy and one other
Adv. M.SELVAM B.Com. B.L.
-
2.Bharathisinga Raj
Respondent(s)
-
1.Chinnasamy
-
2.Kanthammal
-
3.Thapathsingaraja
Case History
-
17-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
19-Jun-2026
IA Pending
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
10-Jun-2026
IA Pending
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
08-Jun-2026
IA Pending
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
27-Apr-2026
IA Pending
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
07-Apr-2026
IA Pending
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
27-Mar-2026
IA Pending
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
24-Mar-2026
IA Pending
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
06-Mar-2026
IA Pending
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
25-Feb-2026
IA Pending
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
19-Feb-2026
IA Pending
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
28-Jan-2026
Judgement
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
23-Jan-2026
Arguments
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
09-Jan-2026
Arguments
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
18-Dec-2025
Arguments
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
08-Dec-2025
Arguments
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
03-Dec-2025
Arguments
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
21-Nov-2025
Arguments
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
15-Oct-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
06-Oct-2025
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
Case Summary: 29/2025 Court: Subordinate Court, Rajapalaiyam Date: 06.10.2025 This is a property dispute involving neighboring properties (Door No. 136 and 136/1) with a shared boundary wall. The petitioners (Muthusamy and Bharathisinga Raj) objected to the respondents (Chinnasamy, Kanthammal, and Thapathsingaraja) constructing an upper floor on their property, leading to a police complaint and a caveat petition. The court examined the cross-examination of the first respondent (Kanthammal) regarding property ownership, previous donations, and boundary demarcations. The court dismissed the petitioners' objections, holding that the respondents have the right to construct on their property and that the petitioners lack any authority over Door No. 136, thereby rejecting the interference claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Oct-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
12-Sep-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
26-Aug-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
22-Aug-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
13-Aug-2025
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
-
13-Aug-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
30-Jul-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
25-Jul-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
23-Jul-2025
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
-
23-Jul-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
16-Jul-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
09-Jul-2025
Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF
-
09-Jul-2025
Evidence
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
02-Jul-2025
Trial
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
23-Jun-2025
IA Pending
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
16-Jun-2025
IA Pending
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
16-Apr-2025
IA Pending
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
02-Apr-2025
IA Pending
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
27-Mar-2025
IA Pending
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
05-Mar-2025
IA Pending
Sub Court,Rajapalayam
-
21-Jan-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Jan-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 29/2025
Case Summary: 29/2025 Court: Subordinate Court, Rajapalaiyam Date: 06.10.2025 This is a property dispute involving neighboring properties (Door No. 136 and 136/1) with a shared boundary wall. The petitioners (Muthusamy and Bharathisinga Raj) objected to the respondents (Chinnasamy, Kanthammal, and Thapathsingaraja) constructing an upper floor on their property, leading to a police complaint and a caveat petition. The court examined the cross-examination of the first respondent (Kanthammal) regarding property ownership, previous donations, and boundary demarcations. The court dismissed the petitioners' objections, holding that the respondents have the right to construct on their property and that the petitioners lack any authority over Door No. 136, thereby rejecting the interference claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts