MEENATCHI vs MANICKAM — 1/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 104(1)(1),ORDER 43 RULE 1(V),ORDER 41 RULE 5. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

CMA - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

CNR: TNSV030007042025

e-Filing Number

04-12-2025

Filing Number

776/2025

Filing Date

08-Dec-2025

Registration No

1/2026

Registration Date

03-Jan-2026

Court

Sub Court, Sivagangai

Judge

3-Subordinate Judge

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 10-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 104(1)(1),ORDER 43 RULE 1(V),ORDER 41 RULE 5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MEENATCHI

    Adv. vijayananth G

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MANICKAM

  2. 2.SEETHALAKSHMI

  3. 3.SURULIVASAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary The court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court's order dated 09.10.2025 in an execution petition. The appellants challenged an order that rejected their claim for a 1/6 share in ancestral property (Survey No. 20/3), arguing they were entitled to the share as descendants of the original property owner. The court found the lower court wrongly dismissed the petition on technical grounds without proper hearing and held that questions regarding daughters' inheritance rights under the Hindu Succession Act 2005 cannot be decided in execution proceedings alone—a separate partition suit must be filed to determine the appellant's rightful share in the full property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Subordinate Judge

  4. 17-Feb-2026

    Orders

    Subordinate Judge

  5. 03-Feb-2026

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  6. 03-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 08-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court allowed the appeal and set aside the lower court's order dated 09.10.2025 in an execution petition. The appellants challenged an order that rejected their claim for a 1/6 share in ancestral property (Survey No. 20/3), arguing they were entitled to the share as descendants of the original property owner. The court found the lower court wrongly dismissed the petition on technical grounds without proper hearing and held that questions regarding daughters' inheritance rights under the Hindu Succession Act 2005 cannot be decided in execution proceedings alone—a separate partition suit must be filed to determine the appellant's rightful share in the full property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case