GOMATHI ALIES M.SHANASS vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP. BY ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFVELLORE DISTRICT Advocate - LOGANATHAN K — 79/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Disposed: Contested--Decreed without cost on 16th April 2026.

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNVL100000752022

Case disposed

Filing Number

105/2022

Filing Date

28-04-2022

Registration No

79/2022

Registration Date

29-06-2022

Court

District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham

Judge

2-District Munsif, Gudiyatham

Decision Date

16th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Decreed without cost

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26

Petitioner(s)

GOMATHI ALIES M.SHANASS

Adv. MOGANARAJU K

CHITRA S

Adv. MOGANARAJU K

Respondent(s)

THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP. BY ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFVELLORE DISTRICT Advocate - LOGANATHAN K

THE TAHSILDAR

Adv. LOGANATHAN K

Hearing History

Judge: 2-District Munsif, Gudiyatham

16-04-2026

Disposed

08-04-2026

Judgement

07-04-2026

Arguments

25-03-2026

Arguments

23-03-2026

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

16-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary: Gomathi Alies M.Shanass and Chitra S v. State of Tamil Nadu The court partially decreed the suit, declaring that Sampath S/o.Kannan, missing since 2005 (17+ years), is presumed civilly dead under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim to be declared sole legal heirs and denied the mandatory injunction for a legal heirship certificate, finding the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead and prove their status as exclusive heirs and Sampath's parentage, and should have first applied to the Tahsildar before approaching the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Gomathi Alies M.Shanass and Chitra S v. State of Tamil Nadu The court partially decreed the suit, declaring that Sampath S/o.Kannan, missing since 2005 (17+ years), is presumed civilly dead under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim to be declared sole legal heirs and denied the mandatory injunction for a legal heirship certificate, finding the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead and prove their status as exclusive heirs and Sampath's parentage, and should have first applied to the Tahsildar before approaching the court. 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

District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case