Pandiyammal vs Ammaponnu Advocate - Mr.D.Balasubramaniyan, M.A. M.L. — 5/2021

Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 37(2). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 30th March 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNSV140000052021

Case disposed

Filing Number

5/2021

Filing Date

07-01-2021

Registration No

5/2021

Registration Date

07-01-2021

Court

Sub Court, Manamadurai

Judge

1-Sub Judge,Manamadurai

Decision Date

30th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Acts & Sections

Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 37(2)

Petitioner(s)

Pandiyammal

Adv. Mr.M.Muthukumar, B.Sc., B.L.,

Muthumani

Adv. Mr.M.Muthukumar, B.Sc. B.L.,

Kesavan

Annalakshmi

Ashok kumar

Anbuselvi

Arasukumar

Respondent(s)

Ammaponnu Advocate - Mr.D.Balasubramaniyan, M.A. M.L.

Kaviyarasan

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Sub Judge,Manamadurai

30-03-2026

Disposed

27-03-2026

Judgement

25-03-2026

Judgement

12-03-2026

Judgement

07-03-2026

Arguments

Interim Orders

16-12-2025
IA order
18-02-2026
Copy of deposition

The court's judgment in this inheritance dispute case held that the defendant's claims regarding property distribution were partially rejected. The court found that the petitioners (Pandiyammal, Muthumani, and Kesavan) are entitled to a 1/3 share of the deceased's properties as legal heirs, while rejecting the defendant's contentions that certain properties were gifted or that the adopted son had claims over the estate. The judgment emphasized that without proper documentation and evidence, the defendant's assertions regarding property transfers could not be upheld. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court's judgment in this inheritance dispute case held that the defendant's claims regarding property distribution were partially rejected. The court found that the petitioners (Pandiyammal, Muthumani, and Kesavan) are entitled to a 1/3 share of the deceased's properties as legal heirs, while rejecting the defendant's contentions that certain properties were gifted or that the adopted son had claims over the estate. The judgment emphasized that without proper documentation and evidence, the defendant's assertions regarding property transfers could not be upheld. 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

Sub Court, Manamadurai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case