K Chennaiyan vs Sivaraj — 100058/2018

Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section O7RULE1to6CPC. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 21st April 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNKI130000652018

Case disposed

Filing Number

65/2018

Filing Date

17-07-2018

Registration No

100058/2018

Registration Date

17-07-2018

Court

District Munsif Court, Uthangarai

Judge

1-District Munsif, Uthangarai

Decision Date

21st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Acts & Sections

CodeofCivilProcedure Section O7RULE1to6CPC

Petitioner(s)

K Chennaiyan

Adv. MURUGESAN.M

Respondent(s)

Sivaraj

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Munsif, Uthangarai

21-04-2026

Disposed

02-04-2026

Judgement

26-03-2026

Arguments

12-03-2026

Arguments

03-03-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

21-04-2026
Copy of Judgment/Order

Case Summary: K Chennaiyan v. Sivaraj (Case 100058/2018) The District Munsif Court, Uthangarai dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of ₹60,000 lent to defendant on June 20, 2016, along with interest. The court found that the promissory note relied upon by plaintiff was forged/fabricated, as evidenced by forensic handwriting analysis showing the signature did not match the defendant's authentic exemplars. The defendant successfully proved the loan was actually borrowed from plaintiff's son Mani, not the plaintiff himself, making the forged promissory note invalid basis for recovery. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: K Chennaiyan v. Sivaraj (Case 100058/2018) The District Munsif Court, Uthangarai dismissed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of ₹60,000 lent to defendant on June 20, 2016, along with interest. The court found that the promissory note relied upon by plaintiff was forged/fabricated, as evidenced by forensic handwriting analysis showing the signature did not match the defendant's authentic exemplars. The defendant successfully proved the loan was actually borrowed from plaintiff's son Mani, not the plaintiff himself, making the forged promissory note invalid basis for recovery. 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

District Munsif Court, Uthangarai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case