D. Geetha vs D. Malini Advocate - Exparte — 227/2022
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section O.7,R.1. Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 24th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTJ010075302022
Filing Number
2117/2022
Filing Date
12-10-2022
Registration No
227/2022
Registration Date
12-10-2022
Court
Principal District Court, Thanjavur
Judge
3-IIAdditional District Judge, Thanjavur
Decision Date
24th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed without cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
D. Geetha
Adv. Selvaraj. N
D. Sasikala
Respondent(s)
D. Malini Advocate - Exparte
D. Kannan
Adv. V.Balamurali,
D. Venkatraman
Adv. Balamurali
Canara Bank, Arulanantha nagar Branch, rep by its , Branch Manager, thanjavur.
Adv. Rajmohan M.G
Indian Bank, Natarajapuram Branch, Rep by its Branch Manager,
Adv. Exparte
Hearing History
Judge: 3-IIAdditional District Judge, Thanjavur
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 17-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 16-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 15-04-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court partially decreed the partition suit: the two plaintiffs (daughters) are entitled to 1/5 share each in the immovable property (Item 1) and bank deposits (Item 3) of their deceased father's estate, along with interest on the Rs. 1,50,000 deposit. However, the plaintiffs' claim to the gold jewelry (Item 2) in the bank locker was dismissed, as evidence established these jewels belonged to the mother and brothers, not the deceased father's estate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The court partially decreed the partition suit: the two plaintiffs (daughters) are entitled to 1/5 share each in the immovable property (Item 1) and bank deposits (Item 3) of their deceased father's estate, along with interest on the Rs. 1,50,000 deposit. However, the plaintiffs' claim to the gold jewelry (Item 2) in the bank locker was dismissed, as evidence established these jewels belonged to the mother and brothers, not the deceased father's estate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts