G. Meenakshi vs P. Gurumurthy and 10 others — 51/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section u/sVIIR1. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 30th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTR080001572020
Filing Number
116/2020
Filing Date
09-03-2020
Registration No
51/2020
Registration Date
09-03-2020
Court
II. Additional District and Sessions Court, Poonamallee
Judge
1-Additional District and Sessions Judge - II
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
G. Meenakshi
Adv. T. Mala
Respondent(s)
P. Gurumurthy and 10 others
Iyyappan
Srinivasan
Sabari
Vanaja
Suriya Kala
P. Kumaraguru
Hariharan
Vasudevan
I. Sarawathi
The Sub Registrar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Additional District and Sessions Judge - II
Disposed
Await Reports
Await Reports
Await Reports
Additional Written Statement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 22-04-2026 | Await Reports |
| 16-04-2026 | Await Reports |
| 02-04-2026 | Await Reports |
| 12-03-2026 | Additional Written Statement |
Final Orders / Judgements
Copy of Judgment
Copy of Decree
Interim Orders
The court allowed G. Meenakshi's petition to amend the original case pleadings concerning an unequal partition deed executed on 23.02.2017. Meenakshi claimed she received only 1/6 share (2,716 sq ft) instead of an equal 1/11 share of inherited ancestral property as a legal heir, allegedly due to unequal allocation in the partition document. The court permitted the amendments to pursue her equitable share claim in the underlying suit, rejecting respondents' contentions that the partition deed could not be challenged and that the limitation period had expired, finding that resolution of substantive issues should occur in the main case proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court allowed G. Meenakshi's petition to amend the original case pleadings concerning an unequal partition deed executed on 23.02.2017. Meenakshi claimed she received only 1/6 share (2,716 sq ft) instead of an equal 1/11 share of inherited ancestral property as a legal heir, allegedly due to unequal allocation in the partition document. The court permitted the amendments to pursue her equitable share claim in the underlying suit, rejecting respondents' contentions that the partition deed could not be challenged and that the limitation period had expired, finding that resolution of substantive issues should occur in the main case proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts