S. Esakki vs Smt. Rajammal and 11 Others Advocate - Adv N.Perumal Pillai — 600093/2015
Case under --- Section 26. Status: Enquiry. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNKK040001262015
Next Hearing
01st June 2026
Filing Number
150/2015
Filing Date
26-03-2015
Registration No
600093/2015
Registration Date
30-03-2015
Court
Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari
Judge
6-Principal District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
S. Esakki
Adv. Adv SA.Kanagasabapathi
Respondent(s)
Smt. Rajammal and 11 Others Advocate - Adv N.Perumal Pillai
S.Bala Subramonian
Adv. Adv N.Perumal Pillai
Swamikannu
Adv. Adv N.Perumal Pillai
Shanmuganathan
Adv. Adv N.Perumal Pillai
Muthuswamy
Adv. Adv N.Perumal Pillai
V.Geetha
Adv. Adv N.Perumal Pillai
M.Suresh Kumar
Adv. K.Venkatesan
V.Sudha
Adv. Adv N.Perumal Pillai
Theivendran
Adv. Adv N.Perumal Pillai
S.Nagam
Adv. Adv N.Perumal Pillai
S.Kalyana Sundari
Adv. Adv N.Perumal Pillai
S.Pappa
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Principal District Munsif
Enquiry
Judgement
Judgement
Judgement
Judgement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Enquiry |
| 27-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 24-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 18-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 15-04-2026 | Judgement |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court, after examining cross-examination testimony regarding disputed documents (Will Affidavits 38-40), found that the plaintiff's claims regarding the authenticity and execution of these documents are not substantiated. The court rejected the plaintiff's contentions that the documents were forged, improperly executed, or that the plaintiff gained no rights from them. The court determined that the three affidavits were validly prepared and concluded that the relief sought by the plaintiff cannot be granted based on the evidence presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court, after examining cross-examination testimony regarding disputed documents (Will Affidavits 38-40), found that the plaintiff's claims regarding the authenticity and execution of these documents are not substantiated. The court rejected the plaintiff's contentions that the documents were forged, improperly executed, or that the plaintiff gained no rights from them. The court determined that the three affidavits were validly prepared and concluded that the relief sought by the plaintiff cannot be granted based on the evidence presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts