C.R.P.No.665 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.01.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

Civil Revision Petition No.665 of 2020

and

CMP.No.3461 of 2020

1. G.Damodaran

2. Thayarammal

.. Petitioners

Versus

Srinivasan @ Srinivasalu

.. Respondent

Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

to to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 19.10.2019 passed in P.O.P

No.30 of 2016 in O.S.No.278 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal

Subordinate Judge Mayiladuthurai.

For Petitioners

:

Mr. S. Sadasharam

For Respondent

:

Mr. B.Jawahar

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order and decreetal order

dated 19.10.2019 passed in POP No.30 of 2016 in O.S.No.278 of 2019 on the

file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, declaring the

respondent herein as pauper.

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.665 of 2020

2.

The revision petitioners herein are the respondents in Pauper

Original Petition (POP) No. 30 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Court,

Mayiladuthurai.

3.

The sole respondent in this revision petition, as Plaintiff, has

filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the revision

petitioners from cultivating the suit property and to hand over the suit property

to him. Further, a declaratory relief was sought for to declare that the plaintiff

is the owner of the A-schedule property and the settlement dated 20.11.2006

executed by the first respondent in favour of his wife, the second respondent

will not bind him in any manner. However along with the suit, the plaintiff has

filed the petition in POP.No.30 of 2016 by stating that the property in question

was in possession and enjoyment of his father of Krishnasamy Naidu. After his

death in the year 1982, it was in enjoyment by his mother, viz., Dhanam

Ammal. On 01.07.2011, the plaintiff's mother Dhanam ammal died and

thereafter, in the year 1994, he had entrusted the possession of the property to

the first defendant, who is none other than his father's brother and left the suit

Village for employment purpose. When he came back in the year 2014, he

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.665 of 2020

demanded the property to be entrusted to him. However, the defendants

evaded and avoided to do so. Suspecting foul play, the respondent/ plaintiff

herein applied for encumbrance certificate and came to know that a settlement

deed dated 20.11.2006 was executed by the first revision petitioner in favour

of the second revision petitioner. The respondent herein also stated that he had

given complaint on 06.05.2015 to the Land Grabbing Officer and an enquiry

was conducted. During the course of the enquiry, the first revision petitioner

undertook to hand over the vacant possession of the property. However, he did

not do so. Therefore, the suit came to be filed for the relief stated above.

Along with the suit, the Pauper Original Petition was filed contending that the

respondent herein is not resourceful enough to pay the Court fee and he is not

gainfully employed for the purpose of instituting the suit. To maintain the

suit, payment of Court fee is necessary. However, as he does possess any

money for paying the Court fee, he has filed the Pauper Original Petition. It is

stated that merely because he does not posses money to pay the Court fee, he

should not be left remediless. It is stated that institution of the present suit is

very much necessary especially when a cloud has been created over the right

of his property.

4.

In the Pauper Original Petition, the revision petitioners

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.665 of 2020

herein filed a counter affidavit contending that the respondent is a man of

means. It is stated that the respondent is earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per

month and he is capable of paying the