SAMMANTHAN vs GANAPATHY AND ONE OTHERS Advocate - Tr.U.Harikrishnan, — 200274/2015
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 37(2). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 25th March 2026.
OS - Original Suit (Title)
CNR: TNTM080003772015
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
200274/2015
Filing Date
05-11-2015
Registration No
200274/2015
Registration Date
05-11-2015
Court
Principal District Munsif Court, Cheyyar
Judge
4-Additional District Munsif, Cheyyar
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SAMMANTHAN
Adv. T.G. MANI., B.A., B.L., Tr.G.Neduzhiyan, M.A., B.L.
Respondent(s)
GANAPATHY AND ONE OTHERS Advocate - Tr.U.Harikrishnan,
Sekar
Adv. Tr.U.Harikrishnan,
Thanigaivel
Adv. Tr.U.Harikrishnan.
Tmt.Punithavathi
Adv. Tr.K.Suntharam, B.A.,B.L.,
Tmt.Dharanibai
Adv. Tr.K.Suntharam, B.A.,B.L.,
Balamurugan
Adv. Tr.K.Suntharam, B.A.,B.L.,
Tr.Sakthivel
Adv. Tr.K.Suntharam, B.A.,B.L.,
Tr.Dhinakaran
Adv. Tr.K.Suntharam, B.A.,B.L.,
Manikandan
Adv. Tr.K.Suntharam, B.A.,B.L.,
Thamizhselvam
Adv. Tr.K.Suntharam, B.A.,B.L.,
Manivannan.
Adv. Tr.A.Nanthakumar, B.A., L.L.B.,
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Additional District Munsif, Cheyyar
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 24-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 11-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 09-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Summary The Additional District Munsif Court in Cheyaar dismissed the plaintiff's partition suit seeking a 1/3 share in property based on a 1993 will. The court held the plaintiff failed to properly prove the will's validity and genuineness because the single examined attesting witness did not appear for cross-examination as required by law, and the plaintiff made no effort to examine the second attesting witness. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Summary The Additional District Munsif Court in Cheyaar dismissed the plaintiff's partition suit seeking a 1/3 share in property based on a 1993 will. The court held the plaintiff failed to properly prove the will's validity and genuineness because the single examined attesting witness did not appear for cross-examination as required by law, and the plaintiff made no effort to examine the second attesting witness. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts