Subbulakshmi vs Tahsildar Advocate - Tr.K. Muthukumarasamy B.Com. B.L. — 20/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1. Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 06th June 2026.

Case disposed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNTS110005452025

Filing Number

32/2025

Filing Date

24-Feb-2025

Registration No

20/2025

Registration Date

26-Feb-2025

Court

District Munsif Court, Shengottah

Judge

1-District Munsif

Decision Date

06-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Decreed without cost

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section O7,R1
Ia/1/2025 Classification : 151 Petition Section SubbulakshmiState Government of Tamil Nadu through its Tenkasi District Collector

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Subbulakshmi

    Adv. Tr. D. Pugalventhan B.Sc. B.L.

  2. 2.Jeyakumari

    Adv. Tr. D. Pugalventhan B.Sc. B.L.

  3. 3.Siva

    Adv. Tr. D. Pugalventhan B.Sc. B.L.

  4. 4.Vigneshram

    Adv. Tr. D. Pugalventhan B.Sc. B.L.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Tahsildar Advocate - Tr.K. Muthukumarasamy B.Com. B.L.

  2. 2.State Government of Tamil Nadu through its Tenkasi District Collector

    Adv. Tr.K. Muthukumarasamy B.Com. B.L.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Jun-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    The District Civil Court in Tenkasi ruled partially in favor of the plaintiffs (Subbulakshmi, Jeyakumari, and Siva), declaring them as the legal heirs of deceased Iyyappan (who died on 03.10.2023) and directing the Tahsildar to issue a legal heirs certificate to them. The court found that only plaintiffs 2-4 are legitimate children of Iyyappan through his second marriage (which occurred while his first wife Sudali was still alive, making it void under Hindu Marriage Act 1955), but under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Statutory Legitimacy), they retain full inheritance rights to his self-acquired property. The court rejected the Tahsildar's rejection of their application based on the "two wives" argument. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    District Munsif

  4. 01-Jun-2026

    Judgement

    District Munsif

  5. 29-Apr-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  6. 29-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif

  7. 24-Apr-2026

    Trial

    District Munsif

  8. 20-Apr-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  9. 20-Apr-2026

    Trial

    District Munsif

  10. 15-Apr-2026

    Trial

    District Munsif

  11. 25-Mar-2026

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  12. 18-Mar-2026

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  13. 10-Mar-2026

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  14. 07-Mar-2026

    Written Statement

    District Munsif

  15. 05-Mar-2026

    Mediation

    District Munsif

  16. 05-Feb-2026

    Mediation

  17. 22-Jan-2026

    Mediation

  18. 13-Dec-2025

    Written Statement

  19. 06-Nov-2025

    Lok Adalat

  20. 13-Sep-2025

    Written Statement

  21. 14-Aug-2025

    Written Statement

  22. 17-Jul-2025

    Written Statement

  23. 25-Jun-2025

    Written Statement

  24. 14-Jun-2025

    Written Statement

  25. 03-Jun-2025

    Lok Adalat

  26. 24-Apr-2025

    Written Statement

  27. 26-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 24-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 20/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The District Civil Court in Tenkasi ruled partially in favor of the plaintiffs (Subbulakshmi, Jeyakumari, and Siva), declaring them as the legal heirs of deceased Iyyappan (who died on 03.10.2023) and directing the Tahsildar to issue a legal heirs certificate to them. The court found that only plaintiffs 2-4 are legitimate children of Iyyappan through his second marriage (which occurred while his first wife Sudali was still alive, making it void under Hindu Marriage Act 1955), but under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Statutory Legitimacy), they retain full inheritance rights to his self-acquired property. The court rejected the Tahsildar's rejection of their application based on the "two wives" argument. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case