R. Kokila vs M. Ramachandran and 3 others — 175/2021

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 37(1), 25(d). Status: Part Heard. Next hearing: 20th July 2026.

Part Heard Next hearing 20-Jul-2026

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNCG010029452021

Filing Number

786/2021

Filing Date

15-Apr-2021

Registration No

175/2021

Registration Date

17-Apr-2021

Court

Principal District Court, Chengalpet

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 37(1), 25(d)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.R. Kokila

    Adv. Krishnaraj K K S

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M. Ramachandran and 3 others

  2. 2.R. Malliga

  3. 3.R. Damodhiran

  4. 4.Pushpa

Case History

  1. 20-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 24-Apr-2026

    Part Heard

    Principal District Judge

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Principal District Judge

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Principal District Judge

  5. 02-Feb-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    Summary of Case 175/2021 This is a property dispute case heard in the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu on February 2, 2026. The court recorded cross-examination statements of the petitioner R. Kokila against respondents M. Ramachandran (Respondent 1) and others regarding disputed ancestral property rights and inheritance claims. The court found that the properties in question were not the separate property of Respondent 1 but rather remained joint family property belonging to Respondents 2 and 3, and rejected claims that the petitioner and Respondent 4 could claim partition rights. The cross-examination of Respondent 4 was deferred due to lack of a written statement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 02-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Principal District Judge

  7. 08-Dec-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  8. 08-Dec-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  9. 08-Dec-2025

    Part Heard

    Principal District Judge

  10. 05-Nov-2025

    List / Special List

    Principal District Judge

  11. 17-Oct-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  12. 15-Sep-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  13. 09-Jul-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  14. 23-Apr-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  15. 14-Mar-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  16. 20-Feb-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  17. 11-Dec-2024

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  18. 18-Oct-2024

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  19. 05-Aug-2024

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  20. 10-Apr-2024

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  21. 10-Jan-2024

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  22. 18-Oct-2023

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  23. 07-Aug-2023

    Trial

    Principal District Judge

  24. 19-Apr-2023

    Issues

    Principal District Judge

  25. 20-Jan-2023

    Issues

    Principal District Judge

  26. 23-Nov-2022

    Issues

    Principal District Judge

  27. 05-Sep-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  28. 18-Jul-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  29. 11-Apr-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  30. 09-Feb-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  31. 03-Jan-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  32. 20-Oct-2021

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  33. 30-Jul-2021

    Issue of Service

    Principal District Judge

  34. 29-Jun-2021

    Issue of Service

    Principal District Judge

  35. 17-Apr-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  36. 15-Apr-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 175/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 175/2021 This is a property dispute case heard in the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu on February 2, 2026. The court recorded cross-examination statements of the petitioner R. Kokila against respondents M. Ramachandran (Respondent 1) and others regarding disputed ancestral property rights and inheritance claims. The court found that the properties in question were not the separate property of Respondent 1 but rather remained joint family property belonging to Respondents 2 and 3, and rejected claims that the petitioner and Respondent 4 could claim partition rights. The cross-examination of Respondent 4 was deferred due to lack of a written statement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case