N Santhana Krishnan vs NIL — 120/2024
Case under Indiansuccessionact Section 372. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 10th March 2026.
OP - Original Petition
CNR: TNSA010042082024
e-Filing Number
19-08-2024
Filing Number
1815/2024
Filing Date
21-08-2024
Registration No
120/2024
Registration Date
03-09-2024
Court
Principal District Court, Salem
Judge
2-I Additional District Judge
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
N Santhana Krishnan
Adv. VELKUMAR ARUNACHALAM
R JAYASANKARI
Adv. VELKUMAR ARUNACHALAM
R Sankararaman
Adv. VELKUMAR ARUNACHALAM
S Sankar Ram
Adv. VELKUMAR ARUNACHALAM
S Sudha
Adv. VELKUMAR ARUNACHALAM
S Lalitha
Adv. VELKUMAR ARUNACHALAM
R Uma Gowri
Adv. VELKUMAR ARUNACHALAM
Respondent(s)
NIL
Hearing History
Judge: 2-I Additional District Judge
Disposed
Orders
Orders
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 02-03-2026 | Orders |
| 04-02-2026 | Orders |
| 09-01-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 16-12-2025 | For further Proceedings |
Final Orders / Judgements
The I Additional District Judge of Salem granted a Succession Certificate to N. Santhana Krishnan (first petitioner) in favor of the legal heirs of deceased P. Natarajan and N. Muthulakshmi, enabling him to receive 1,000 TVS Motor Company shares (including bonus shares) and all accumulated dividends. The court found that all seven petitioners were legitimate legal heirs with no conflicting claims, and authorized the first petitioner as representative to collect the assets on behalf of all heirs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The I Additional District Judge of Salem granted a Succession Certificate to N. Santhana Krishnan (first petitioner) in favor of the legal heirs of deceased P. Natarajan and N. Muthulakshmi, enabling him to receive 1,000 TVS Motor Company shares (including bonus shares) and all accumulated dividends. The court found that all seven petitioners were legitimate legal heirs with no conflicting claims, and authorized the first petitioner as representative to collect the assets on behalf of all heirs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts