K.Meenakshi vs The village Administrative officer, Theralappur — 44/2021

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(d), 27(c). Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 07th April 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNSV060000542021

Case disposed

Filing Number

88/2021

Filing Date

06-09-2021

Registration No

44/2021

Registration Date

06-09-2021

Court

District Munsif Court, Devakkottai

Judge

2-District Munsif

Decision Date

07th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Decreed without cost

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 25(d), 27(c)

Petitioner(s)

K.Meenakshi

Adv. S.Balasubramanian

K. Manickam

K. Muthusamy

K. Subramanian

K. Palaniyappan

R.Ramu

Lakshmi

Respondent(s)

The village Administrative officer, Theralappur

The Tahshildar

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai

The District Collector, Sivagangai

Hearing History

Judge: 2-District Munsif

07-04-2026

Disposed

23-03-2026

Judgement

12-03-2026

Arguments

05-03-2026

Evidence

27-02-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

29-01-2026
Copy of deposition

Case Summary: 44/2021 The court dismissed the petition filed by K. Meenakshi, K. Manickam, and K. Muthusamy seeking a succession certificate. The petitioner's mother passed away on 13.01.2021 before the case was filed, and the court found that the petitioner failed to include the heirs of his brother Rathnam as necessary parties despite acknowledging they had equal inheritance rights. The court ruled that the petition must be dismissed with the respondents' costs due to non-joinder of essential parties and procedural irregularities in pursuing the claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 44/2021 The court dismissed the petition filed by K. Meenakshi, K. Manickam, and K. Muthusamy seeking a succession certificate. The petitioner's mother passed away on 13.01.2021 before the case was filed, and the court found that the petitioner failed to include the heirs of his brother Rathnam as necessary parties despite acknowledging they had equal inheritance rights. The court ruled that the petition must be dismissed with the respondents' costs due to non-joinder of essential parties and procedural irregularities in pursuing the claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District Munsif Court, Devakkottai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case