Kala.G vs Meenammal.S Advocate - Selvakumar.S — 900058/2016
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section O7R1. Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 06th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTH010016142016
Filing Number
900058/2016
Filing Date
01-12-2016
Registration No
900058/2016
Registration Date
01-12-2016
Court
Principal District Court, Theni
Judge
9-Additional District Judge Fast Track Court
Decision Date
06th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed without cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kala.G
Adv. Manoharan.S
Respondent(s)
Meenammal.S Advocate - Selvakumar.S
S.Saroja
Adv. Selvakumar.S
Latha.M
Adv. Exp
Sinthuja @ Dhanalakshmi
Adv. Selvakumar.S
Minor. S.R.Harin
Adv. Selvakumar.S
Superintendent, Central custom tax office, P.C.Patti
Adv. Exp
Hearing History
Judge: 9-Additional District Judge Fast Track Court
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Additional Written Statement
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 23-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 18-03-2026 | Additional Written Statement |
| 17-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court partially granted Kala's partition suit, declaring her entitled to a 2/8 share in two ancestral properties (items 2 and 3) as a coparcener under Hindu Succession Act. The court nullified the 2012 Will and 2014 Gift Deed that purported to exclude her from these coparcenary properties, holding they were invalid regarding her coparcener rights. However, the court rejected her claims to other properties and mesne profits, ruling that item 1 was self-acquired, item 5 was validly settled to male descendants, and item 4 partially belonged to her husband. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The court partially granted Kala's partition suit, declaring her entitled to a 2/8 share in two ancestral properties (items 2 and 3) as a coparcener under Hindu Succession Act. The court nullified the 2012 Will and 2014 Gift Deed that purported to exclude her from these coparcenary properties, holding they were invalid regarding her coparcener rights. However, the court rejected her claims to other properties and mesne profits, ruling that item 1 was self-acquired, item 5 was validly settled to male descendants, and item 4 partially belonged to her husband. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts