Compliance with procedural rules, proof of indigence, and timely filing of suits are crucial for seeking permission to sue as an indigent person.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 104 r/w Order 43 Rule (1) of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the order and decree dated 14.09.2012 made in Pauper O.P.No.50 of 2011 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Puducherry and permit the appellant to institute the suit as indigent person.)

1. The appellant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under under Section 104 r/w Order 43 Rule (1) of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the order and decree dated 14.09.2012 made in O.P.No.50 of 2011 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Puducherry and permit the appellant to institute the suit as indigent person.

2. The case of the appellant is that the suit property originally belonged to one Appadurai and it was purchased by Subrayan, who is the grandfather of the appellant, by way of a sale deed dated 08.03.1933. The said Subrayan, who has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, died in the year 1950 leaving behind the father of the appellant, viz., Kilandi and his sister, Anandayee, as his legal heirs. Thereafter, the said Kilandi died in the year 1972 leaving behind his sister, viz., Anandayee and the appellant herein, as his legal heirs. In consequence, during March, 1999, in order to earn for livelihood, the appellant has shifted to Kottakarai Village, as it provides easy access to working places. The appellant was working as mason and doing construction activities leaving behind his aunt, Anandayee to continue to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. It is the further case of the appellant that the said Anandayee died unmarried on 02.04.2000 leaving behind the appellant as sole legal heir. The 1st respondent had forcibly tress passed and occupied the suit property in May, 2006 claiming that he has purchased the property from the said Anandayee by a deed dated 20.10.1999 in favour of him. However, the appellant denied the truthness, correctness, genuineness, other recitals, attestation and signature of Anandayee in the alleged said sale deed. The appellant also specifically stated that Anandayee, sister of his father, never executed any sale deed. While registering the alleged forgery sale deed dated 20.10.1999, the 1st respondent had fabricated forged document fraudulently and misrepresented a third party woman as Anandayee before the Registration Authority. The appellant also states that title was not at all conveyed to the 1st respondent and even the said Anandayee was having title only in respect of undivided 1/2 share in the suit property and that the alleged sale deed will not bind the another 1/2 share of the appellant herein.

4. According to the appellant, again the 1st respondent sold the property on 21.12.2000 by way of sale deed to the 2nd respondent. The said sale deed was executed by the 1st respondent, who does not have any right, title or interest in the suit property. The appellant has filed a suit before the II Additional District Munsif Court, Pondicherry in O.S.No.304 of 2002 and the said court has passed an order stating that the appellant has to present the same before the court having proper pecuniary limits. The appellant has also preferred a criminal complaint against the 1st and 2nd respondents for the preparation of forged and fraudulent sale deed dated 20.10.1999, in order to usurp the suit property. A charge sheet has been laid by the authority in C.C.No.32 of 2007. The finger print expert has clearly stated that the signature in the alleged sale deed dated 22.10.1999 is not in identical with the admitted signature of Anandayee, sister of appellant’s father, which clearly confirms the fact that the said Anandayee has never executed any sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent.

5. Further, the appellant states that the 2nd respondent with an intent to create multiplicity of proceedings seems to have created a deed and styled as Settlement Deed dated 26.10.2005 and claims that the 3rd respondent, who is the elder bro