BAGGIALAKSHMI vs RAJKUMAR AND 3 OTHERS — 166/2022

Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section U/s. 25 (b), Sec26,151,Or7,Ru1. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNTM010033022022

Evidence

Next Hearing

04th June 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

841/2022

Filing Date

08-08-2022

Registration No

166/2022

Registration Date

10-08-2022

Court

District and Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai

Judge

1-Principal District & Sessions Judge

Acts & Sections

CodeofCivilProcedure Section U/s. 25 (b), Sec26,151,Or7,Ru1
IA/2/2023 Classification : Petition to Set aside Exparte Section BAGGIALAKSHMI

Petitioner(s)

BAGGIALAKSHMI

Adv. THIRU.M. SAMPATHRAJAN

Respondent(s)

RAJKUMAR AND 3 OTHERS

SWARNALAKSHMI

SEENIVASAN

SELVAKUMAR

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District & Sessions Judge

22-04-2026

Evidence

10-03-2026

Evidence

12-02-2026

Evidence

05-02-2026

Evidence

08-01-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

22-04-2026
Copy of Deposition

Summary: In O.S. No. 166/2022 DW2 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, dated 22.04.2026, the court examined a property dispute involving a will executed on 22.10.2007. The court found that the defendant (Neevakundar) had improperly executed a registered document transferring property to third parties without proper authority. The court held that only the defendant had the authority to execute such a document and declared the disputed registered document (Item No. 562/10 dated 03.01.2008) invalid, rejecting the defendant's claim and the third parties' interests in the property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In O.S. No. 166/2022 DW2 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, dated 22.04.2026, the court examined a property dispute involving a will executed on 22.10.2007. The court found that the defendant (Neevakundar) had improperly executed a registered document transferring property to third parties without proper authority. The court held that only the defendant had the authority to execute such a document and declared the disputed registered document (Item No. 562/10 dated 03.01.2008) invalid, rejecting the defendant's claim and the third parties' interests in the property. 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 and Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case