BALAKRISHNAN vs EGANTHAN Advocate - BOOPATHI K M — 36/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 37(2)25(d). Disposed: Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree on 16th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNVL100000582020
Filing Number
75/2020
Filing Date
04-03-2020
Registration No
36/2020
Registration Date
17-03-2020
Court
District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham
Judge
2-District Munsif, Gudiyatham
Decision Date
16th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Ex-Parte Decree
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BALAKRISHNAN
Adv. SUDHAPRABHU S
Respondent(s)
EGANTHAN Advocate - BOOPATHI K M
VASANTHAMMA
MALLIGA
RADHAKRISHNAN
RADHAMMAL
SUJATHA
PARVATHI
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Munsif, Gudiyatham
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 25-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 02-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Balakrishnan v. Eganthan & Others (O.S. No. 36/2020) The District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam, dismissed Balakrishnan's suit challenging a 2018 settlement deed. The court held that the suit property, inherited by the plaintiff's father Erraiyan through oral partition in 1965 after their grandfather's death, became Erraiyan's self-acquired property under the Hindu Succession Act 1956, not ancestral property. Consequently, Erraiyan had absolute rights to execute the 2018 settlement deed favoring the first defendant, and the plaintiff failed to establish his claim for partition or invalidate the registered settlement deed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Balakrishnan v. Eganthan & Others (O.S. No. 36/2020) The District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam, dismissed Balakrishnan's suit challenging a 2018 settlement deed. The court held that the suit property, inherited by the plaintiff's father Erraiyan through oral partition in 1965 after their grandfather's death, became Erraiyan's self-acquired property under the Hindu Succession Act 1956, not ancestral property. Consequently, Erraiyan had absolute rights to execute the 2018 settlement deed favoring the first defendant, and the plaintiff failed to establish his claim for partition or invalidate the registered settlement deed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts