A.R. Subalakshmi vs B.Ramachandran — 229/2019
Case under Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 Section 7, 8, 9. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
OP - Original Petition
CNR: TNCG010057522019
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
Filing Number
1895/2019
Filing Date
08-08-2019
Registration No
229/2019
Registration Date
11-11-2019
Court
Principal District Court, Chengalpet
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
A.R. Subalakshmi
Adv. Hari Krishnan.K
Respondent(s)
B.Ramachandran
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-06-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 10-04-2026 | Part Heard |
| 16-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 20-02-2026 | Part Heard |
| 13-02-2026 | Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: OP 229/2019 - A.R. Subalakshmi v. B. Ramachandran On March 16, 2026, the Principal District Court at Chengalpattu recorded the testimony of the second witness (Dakshiṇāmūrti), age 90, under the Indian Evidence Act, 1973. During cross-examination, the witness testified that he had limited knowledge of the settlement deed and related property matters, did not read key documents, could not recall specific dates of property division, and lacked detailed information about the deceased Radhakrishnan's family affairs. The court admitted the testimony subject to statutory requirements. The case proceedings continue with witness examination; no final order on the main petition has been issued at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: OP 229/2019 - A.R. Subalakshmi v. B. Ramachandran On March 16, 2026, the Principal District Court at Chengalpattu recorded the testimony of the second witness (Dakshiṇāmūrti), age 90, under the Indian Evidence Act, 1973. During cross-examination, the witness testified that he had limited knowledge of the settlement deed and related property matters, did not read key documents, could not recall specific dates of property division, and lacked detailed information about the deceased Radhakrishnan's family affairs. The court admitted the testimony subject to statutory requirements. The case proceedings continue with witness examination; no final order on the main petition has been issued at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts