Kuppusamy vs Gogulakrishnan. S/0 Velu — 70/2020
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 27(c). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 13th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTM070000942020
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
203/2020
Filing Date
06-11-2020
Registration No
70/2020
Registration Date
24-11-2020
Court
District Munsif Court, Arani
Judge
2-District Munsif,Arani
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kuppusamy
Adv. K.Chaiyyan B.A.,B.L.,
Respondent(s)
Gogulakrishnan. S/0 Velu
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif,Arani
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 06-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 04-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The District Munsif Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction, holding that the 2009 will relied upon by the plaintiff was validly revoked by the testator (Lakshmi Ammal) through a subsequent will dated 13.02.2019 that divided the property between the plaintiff and defendant. The court ruled that since the plaintiff failed to prove the subsequent will was obtained through fraud or undue influence, and admitted its existence during cross-examination, he cannot claim exclusive ownership of the entire property and is thus not entitled to the injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The District Munsif Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction, holding that the 2009 will relied upon by the plaintiff was validly revoked by the testator (Lakshmi Ammal) through a subsequent will dated 13.02.2019 that divided the property between the plaintiff and defendant. The court ruled that since the plaintiff failed to prove the subsequent will was obtained through fraud or undue influence, and admitted its existence during cross-examination, he cannot claim exclusive ownership of the entire property and is thus not entitled to the injunction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts