M.RAJALAKSHMI AND ANOTHER vs A.JOTHI @ JOTHIYAMMAL AND 13 OTHERS — 300/2023
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section OR7R1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNKR010036102023
Next Hearing
24th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1197/2023
Filing Date
17-11-2023
Registration No
300/2023
Registration Date
30-11-2023
Court
Principal District Court, Karur
Judge
1-District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M.RAJALAKSHMI AND ANOTHER
Adv. A.ANNADURAI
V.BAKKIYAM
T.MUTHAIYAH
Respondent(s)
A.JOTHI @ JOTHIYAMMAL AND 13 OTHERS
B.PONNARASI
M.TAMILARASI
S.PERIYAKKAL
P.KANDASAMY
S.AMARAVATHI
G.SHANTHI
M.SHANMUGAM
K.SUBRAMANI
G.DHANALAKSHMI
M.ARUKKANI
THE MANAGER, MADARAS CEMENT CORPORATION LTD, DINDIGUL
THE MANAGER, ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD, KARUR
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, M.P.K. EXPORTS PRIVATE LTD, MADURAI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 06-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 30-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 23-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary This is a Tamil Nadu civil case (A.V. No. 300/2023, dated 09.03.2026) concerning property partition and inheritance disputes within the Mariyappan family. The court, after examining witness testimony and cross-examination of defendants 1, 12, and 13, found that the plaintiff has no legal rights to the disputed property, as it was validly partitioned and settled in favor of defendant Ariyambi under a registered partition deed (No. 2244/1950) and subsequent family settlements. The case is dismissed as the plaintiff's claims are rejected based on the evidence of valid transfers and prior settlements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This is a Tamil Nadu civil case (A.V. No. 300/2023, dated 09.03.2026) concerning property partition and inheritance disputes within the Mariyappan family. The court, after examining witness testimony and cross-examination of defendants 1, 12, and 13, found that the plaintiff has no legal rights to the disputed property, as it was validly partitioned and settled in favor of defendant Ariyambi under a registered partition deed (No. 2244/1950) and subsequent family settlements. The case is dismissed as the plaintiff's claims are rejected based on the evidence of valid transfers and prior settlements. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts