Kousalya Srinivasan vs C Ramadurai and 3 others — 55/2023

Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 37(2). Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNCG010008672023

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

Next Hearing

19th June 2026

Filing Number

241/2023

Filing Date

01-02-2023

Registration No

55/2023

Registration Date

02-02-2023

Court

Principal District Court, Chengalpet

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Acts & Sections

CodeofCivilProcedure Section 37(2)

Petitioner(s)

Kousalya Srinivasan

Adv. Rajesh Ramanathan

Respondent(s)

C Ramadurai and 3 others

Krishnan

Seshadri.C

Subadra

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District Judge

10-06-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

08-04-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

16-03-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

04-03-2026

IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending

25-02-2026

Restored

Interim Orders

05-03-2025
IA

Case Summary: O.S. No. 55/2023 Outcome: The petition filed by C. Krishnan (2nd defendant) to reject the plaint was allowed. The suit filed by Kousalya Srinivasan (plaintiff/1st respondent) seeking to declare a 1996 release deed null and void and for partition of property was rejected. The court found the suit barred by limitation (27 years after the 1996 deed), lacking cause of action, and vexatious, as the plaintiff herself was a signatory to the disputed release deed and cannot now claim her signature was forged without subjecting the property to endless litigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: O.S. No. 55/2023 Outcome: The petition filed by C. Krishnan (2nd defendant) to reject the plaint was allowed. The suit filed by Kousalya Srinivasan (plaintiff/1st respondent) seeking to declare a 1996 release deed null and void and for partition of property was rejected. The court found the suit barred by limitation (27 years after the 1996 deed), lacking cause of action, and vexatious, as the plaintiff herself was a signatory to the disputed release deed and cannot now claim her signature was forged without subjecting the property to endless litigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Principal District Court, Chengalpet All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case