Krishnammal and 2 others vs Esakiammal and 2 others — 233/2022
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7R1. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 17th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNTS040003302024
Filing Number
233/2022
Filing Date
06-Apr-2022
Registration No
233/2022
Registration Date
06-Apr-2022
Court
Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi
Judge
5-Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
Decision Date
17-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Last updated 20-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Krishnammal and 2 others
Adv. Tr.P.Radha Krishnan
-
2.Selvi
-
3.Chandran
Respondent(s)
-
1.Esakiammal and 2 others
-
2.S. Mariammal
-
3.Banumathi
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Apr-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
CASE SUMMARY Case 233/2022 | Krishnammal & Others v. Esakiammal & Others The court dismissed the partition suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking 2/3 share in suit properties. The court found that: (1) the suit properties were already partitioned informally in 1991 between the original owners' children, with the first defendant receiving a separate portion; (2) the plaintiffs failed to prove the alleged oral partition through proper documentation, evidence, or revenue records; and (3) necessary parties (deceased ancestors' other successors) were not joined, making the suit legally defective. The court ruled the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief or partition decree, and the defendants should bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Apr-2026
Disposed
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
18-Mar-2026
Judgement
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
17-Mar-2026
Arguments
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
06-Mar-2026
Arguments
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
24-Feb-2026
Arguments
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
17-Feb-2026
Arguments
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
06-Feb-2026
Arguments
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
12-Jan-2026
Arguments
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
19-Dec-2025
Arguments
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
05-Dec-2025
Arguments
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
21-Nov-2025
Arguments
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
11-Nov-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
25-Oct-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
10-Oct-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
23-Sep-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
23-Sep-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
19-Sep-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
08-Sep-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
13-Aug-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
05-Aug-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
11-Jul-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
03-Jul-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
19-Jun-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
19-Jun-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
10-Jun-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
23-Apr-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
20-Mar-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
06-Mar-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
06-Mar-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
03-Mar-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
24-Feb-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
03-Feb-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
23-Jan-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
23-Jan-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
20-Jan-2025
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
19-Nov-2024
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
07-Nov-2024
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
30-Sep-2024
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
19-Aug-2024
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
19-Aug-2024
Evidence
Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
-
19-Jul-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-Apr-2022
Case filed
Registration No. 233/2022
CASE SUMMARY Case 233/2022 | Krishnammal & Others v. Esakiammal & Others The court dismissed the partition suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking 2/3 share in suit properties. The court found that: (1) the suit properties were already partitioned informally in 1991 between the original owners' children, with the first defendant receiving a separate portion; (2) the plaintiffs failed to prove the alleged oral partition through proper documentation, evidence, or revenue records; and (3) necessary parties (deceased ancestors' other successors) were not joined, making the suit legally defective. The court ruled the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief or partition decree, and the defendants should bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts