Mathiyalagan vs Elango Advocate - Exparte — 300069/2017
Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 25(d). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNTJ100000762017
Next Hearing
01st June 2026
Filing Number
300069/2017
Filing Date
13-04-2017
Registration No
300069/2017
Registration Date
13-04-2017
Court
District Munsif Court, Pattukottai
Judge
3-District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mathiyalagan
Adv. R. Govintharaj
Respondent(s)
Elango Advocate - Exparte
Shampath
Adv. K.Manikandan
Kavitha
Adv. K.Manikandan
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Munsif
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 08-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 01-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 24-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Original Case No. 69/2017 | District Munsif, Pattukkottai | Date: 08.04.2026 This is a cross-examination transcript in a property dispute case involving succession and a disputed will. The witness testified regarding the deceased Rajammah's will executed on 25.02.2014 (18 days before her death on 18.03.2014), property transfers, and inheritance claims by multiple heirs. The court found no evidence of will fraud, improper succession of parties, or grounds for dismissal, and rejected the defendant's contention that the will was procured fraudulently. The case proceedings continue with cross-examination concluded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Original Case No. 69/2017 | District Munsif, Pattukkottai | Date: 08.04.2026 This is a cross-examination transcript in a property dispute case involving succession and a disputed will. The witness testified regarding the deceased Rajammah's will executed on 25.02.2014 (18 days before her death on 18.03.2014), property transfers, and inheritance claims by multiple heirs. The court found no evidence of will fraud, improper succession of parties, or grounds for dismissal, and rejected the defendant's contention that the will was procured fraudulently. The case proceedings continue with cross-examination concluded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts