SEKAR C vs ASHOKAN C Advocate - ARUNACHALAM S — 246/2023

Case under Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 37(2), 27(c). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 10th April 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNTU070006892023

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

629/2023

Filing Date

07-07-2023

Registration No

246/2023

Registration Date

10-07-2023

Court

Sub Court, Vaniyambadi

Judge

1-Subordinate Judge,Vaniyambadi

Decision Date

10th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Acts & Sections

COURT FEES ACT, 1870 Section 37(2), 27(c)
IA/2/2026 Classification : 151 Petition Section SEKAR C
IA/3/2026 Classification : Recall Petition Section SEKAR C

Petitioner(s)

SEKAR C

Adv. GNANASEKARAN K G

SIVAKUMAR C

JAYANTHI

SEETHA

MANJUPRIYA

ARAVINDAN

Respondent(s)

ASHOKAN C Advocate - ARUNACHALAM S

KAVITHA

Adv. DEVAKUMAR A C

DILSHAD

Adv. R ANITHA KARTHIKEYAN

RAHMAN

Adv. R ANITHA KARTHIKEYAN

ROSHINI BEGUM

Adv. R ANITHA KARTHIKEYAN

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge,Vaniyambadi

10-04-2026

Disposed

27-03-2026

Judgement

24-03-2026

Arguments

17-03-2026

Arguments

13-03-2026

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

10-04-2026
Copy of Judgment/Order

Court Decision Summary The Sub Court of Vaniyambadi ruled that plaintiffs are entitled to a 3/6 share of disputed property, while defendants' counterclaim regarding a will document (dated 30.09.2010) was upheld as valid. The court rejected the plaintiffs' challenge to the will's authenticity and dismissed their claims for an injunction against the second defendant and for income distribution rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Sub Court of Vaniyambadi ruled that plaintiffs are entitled to a 3/6 share of disputed property, while defendants' counterclaim regarding a will document (dated 30.09.2010) was upheld as valid. The court rejected the plaintiffs' challenge to the will's authenticity and dismissed their claims for an injunction against the second defendant and for income distribution rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Sub Court, Vaniyambadi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case