Kandadai Venkatraman Krishnan vs Savithri Thulasi Radhakrishnan alias Savithri Radhakrishnan — TP/6188/2025

Case under Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 276. Next hearing: : -.

CNR: HCBM020310652025

Next Hearing

: -

e-Filing Number

25-09-2025

Filing Number

TP/31064/2025

Filing Date

26-09-2025

Registration No

TP/6188/2025

Registration Date

04-12-2025

Judge

Mrs. Kavita Y. Ambekar, Company Registrar/Testamentary Registrar

Coram

Mrs. Kavita Y. Ambekar, Company Registrar/Testamentary Registrar

Bench Type

Single

Category

TESTAMENTARY ( 63 )

Sub-Category

Probate ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Acts & Sections

Indian Succession Act, 1925 Section 276

Petitioner(s)

Kandadai Venkatraman Krishnan

Adv. MAHESH MENON AND CO

Respondent(s)

Savithri Thulasi Radhakrishnan alias Savithri Radhakrishnan

Hearing History

Judge: Mrs. Kavita Y. Ambekar, Company Registrar/Testamentary Registrar

05-12-2025

FOR DIRECTION

Orders

15-04-2026
Mrs. Kavita Y. Ambekar, Company Registrar/Testamentary Registrar

The case (TP/6188/2025 with WILL/2349/2025) was called for hearing before the Testamentary Registrar on 15th April 2026. The court found that the previous order dated 30.01.2026 has not been complied with, as legal heirs have not been properly mentioned in the petition as per sections 15(1)(c), 15(1)(d), and 15(1)(e) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The advocate was directed to take necessary steps for compliance, and the matter was adjourned with liberty to move for listing upon fulfillment of the stated requisitions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The case (TP/6188/2025 with WILL/2349/2025) was called for hearing before the Testamentary Registrar on 15th April 2026. The court found that the previous order dated 30.01.2026 has not been complied with, as legal heirs have not been properly mentioned in the petition as per sections 15(1)(c), 15(1)(d), and 15(1)(e) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The advocate was directed to take necessary steps for compliance, and the matter was adjourned with liberty to move for listing upon fulfillment of the stated requisitions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case