Mahalakshmi (Died), 1. Maheswari, M/s.N.Rahamadullah, ,P. SARAVANAKUMAR,P.Kalaiyarasi Bharathi vs Rajeswari — SA(MD)/75/2026
Case under U/s 100 of C.p.c Section 100. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 05th June 2026.
CNR: HCMD010963592025
Filing Number
SA(MD)/66616/2025
Filing Date
05-08-2025
Registration No
SA(MD)/75/2026
Registration Date
27-02-2026
Judge
Honourable Mr Justice P.B. BALAJI
Coram
Honourable Mr Justice P.B. BALAJI
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
Suits ( 149 )
Sub-Category
Declaration ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
Judicial Section
Decision Date
05th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mahalakshmi (Died), 1. Maheswari, M/s.N.Rahamadullah, ,P. SARAVANAKUMAR,P.Kalaiyarasi Bharathi
Jeyachitra
Vaijeyanthimala
Gayathri
Respondent(s)
Rajeswari
Adv. T.ARUNGANESH,K.KAVIARASAN FOR R1 (IN SR STAGE),M/S.GOVERNMENT PLEADER ,FOR R2 DT 26/03/2026 USR12421 1123
The Sub Registrar,
Hearing History
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice P.B. BALAJI
FOR ADMISSION
FINAL HEARING CASES
FINAL HEARING CASES
XxX
FOR ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 03-03-2026 | FOR ADMISSION |
| 16-04-2026 | FINAL HEARING CASES |
| 08-04-2026 | FINAL HEARING CASES |
| 27-03-2026 | XxX |
| 05-03-2026 | FOR ADMISSION |
Orders
Case Summary: SA(MD) No.75/2026 Court Decision: The Madras High Court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the First Appellate Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. Key Facts: Sisters Mahalakshmi (plaintiff) and Rajeswari (defendant) disputed a settlement deed dated 16.07.2007. Plaintiff claimed the illiterate defendant fraudulently obtained her signature under the pretext of patta mutation, transferring valuable properties. Defendant countered that plaintiff voluntarily executed the deed. Reasoning: The court found the plaintiff failed to prove fraud or misrepresentation. Witness testimony confirmed voluntary execution before the Sub Registrar, who affirmed proper registration procedures. The plaintiff's 10-year delay in challenging the deed (discovered only during house renovation in 2016, sued April 2017) undermined credibility. The court rejected the illiteracy argument, noting plaintiff signed the document with her husband present and obtained certified copies, distinguishing this case from precedent requiring thumb impressions alone. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: SA(MD) No.75/2026 Court Decision: The Madras High Court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the First Appellate Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. Key Facts: Sisters Mahalakshmi (plaintiff) and Rajeswari (defendant) disputed a settlement deed dated 16.07.2007. Plaintiff claimed the illiterate defendant fraudulently obtained her signature under the pretext of patta mutation, transferring valuable properties. Defendant countered that plaintiff voluntarily executed the deed. Reasoning: The court found the plaintiff failed to prove fraud or misrepresentation. Witness testimony confirmed voluntary execution before the Sub Registrar, who affirmed proper registration procedures. The plaintiff's 10-year delay in challenging the deed (discovered only during house renovation in 2016, sued April 2017) undermined credibility. The court rejected the illiteracy argument, noting plaintiff signed the document with her husband present and obtained certified copies, distinguishing this case from precedent requiring thumb impressions alone. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts