Manimekalai vs Veeranan and another — 228/2022
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 37(2),27(c). Disposed: Contested--Partially Allowed on 09th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD240004322022
Filing Number
419/2022
Filing Date
17-11-2022
Registration No
228/2022
Registration Date
17-11-2022
Court
Sub Court, Usilampatti
Judge
3-Sub Judge, Usilampatti
Decision Date
09th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Partially Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Manimekalai
Adv. Tr.S.Ganapathi
Respondent(s)
Veeranan and another
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Sub Judge, Usilampatti
Disposed
Judgement
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 01-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 30-03-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 16-03-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 09-03-2026 | For further Proceedings |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 228/2022 - Manimekalai v. Veeranan The court ruled that plaintiff Manimekalai is entitled to a 1/3 share in the suit properties (Schedules A and B), with the other 1/3 shares going to respondents Veeranan and Chinna Veeramma respectively. The court found that the ancestral properties belonged to the plaintiff's parents and constitute joint family property, rejecting the respondent's claim of oral gift. Regarding Schedule C property (gold items), the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for lack of evidence. The court granted a decree for partition and permanent injunction restraining respondents from interfering with the plaintiff's share. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 228/2022 - Manimekalai v. Veeranan The court ruled that plaintiff Manimekalai is entitled to a 1/3 share in the suit properties (Schedules A and B), with the other 1/3 shares going to respondents Veeranan and Chinna Veeramma respectively. The court found that the ancestral properties belonged to the plaintiff's parents and constitute joint family property, rejecting the respondent's claim of oral gift. Regarding Schedule C property (gold items), the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for lack of evidence. The court granted a decree for partition and permanent injunction restraining respondents from interfering with the plaintiff's share. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts