Tmt.Sowndammal vs Tmt.N.Sumathi Advocate - A.Anwar Batcha — 392/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 27(c). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNCB130004642020
Next Hearing
03rd June 2026
Filing Number
464/2020
Filing Date
22-12-2020
Registration No
392/2020
Registration Date
22-12-2020
Court
District Munsif Court, Pollachi
Judge
2-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MUNSIF, POLLACHI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Tmt.Sowndammal
Adv. T.Elango
Tmt.Eswari
Respondent(s)
Tmt.N.Sumathi Advocate - A.Anwar Batcha
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MUNSIF, POLLACHI
Evidence
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 18-04-2026 | Part Heard |
| 06-04-2026 | Part Heard |
| 24-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 11-03-2026 | Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary: This is a civil court order from the Additional District Court in Pallachchai (Case No. 392/2020) dated March 24, 2026, recording witness examination testimony regarding the validity of a will (Document 18). The court examined a witness's testimony concerning a will allegedly created on June 21, 2021, which had signatures only on the third page and questionable authenticity. The court found significant inconsistencies in the witness testimony—including inability to confirm details about the will's creation, the testator's medical condition at the time, and lack of documentary evidence—leading to the conclusion that the will document appears to be forged and the fourth defendant cannot claim any rights based on it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: This is a civil court order from the Additional District Court in Pallachchai (Case No. 392/2020) dated March 24, 2026, recording witness examination testimony regarding the validity of a will (Document 18). The court examined a witness's testimony concerning a will allegedly created on June 21, 2021, which had signatures only on the third page and questionable authenticity. The court found significant inconsistencies in the witness testimony—including inability to confirm details about the will's creation, the testator's medical condition at the time, and lack of documentary evidence—leading to the conclusion that the will document appears to be forged and the fourth defendant cannot claim any rights based on it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts