SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70680

MADRAS HIGH COURT
NAZIR AHAMED – Appellant
Versus
JAHAN ARA BEGUM – Respondent
CRP 3833/2014



Advocates:
['M/S N SURESH', '', 'J JANI JEBAMALAR', 'M/S S XAVIER FELIX', '', 'R - MINOR REP BY R', 'RR TO - AOS NOT FILED', 'R - APPEARANCE', '', 'PVT NOTICE', 'RR TO - UNCLAIMED', 'F JESCINTHA SHEELA']

C.R.P. No.3833 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

ORDERS RESERVED ON : 08.07.2022

ORDERS DELIVERED ON : 14.10.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

C.R.P. No.3833 of 2014

and M.P.No.1 of 2014

Nazir Ahamed

.. Petitioner / Petitioner

Versus

1.Jahan Ara Begum

2.Mohamed @ Mufeen

3.Ahamed @ Asin

4.Fathima

5.Minor Rahamathulla

(Rep. by guardian mother 1st respondent)

.. Respondents/respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India against the fair and decretal order in Pauper O.P.No.119 of 2012 dated

27.06.2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram.

For Petitioner

: Mr.N.Suresh

For R-1

: Mr.Xavier Felix

*******

1/6

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

C.R.P. No.3833 of 2014

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order

in Pauper O.P.No.119 of 2012 dated 27.06.2014 on the file of the Principal

District Judge, Villupuram.

2. Pauper O.P.No.119 of 2012 has been filed by the revision petitioner

herein who is the plaintiff seeking to declare him as indigent person and also for

the grant of relief of declaration of his right and title over the suit A Schedule

property and also for the recovery of possession of the same and also for other

reliefs.

3. It was pleaded by the revision petitioner/plaintiff before the trial court

that he purchased the suit A Schedule property and he was residing there with his

family. According to him, defendants 1 to 4 who are none other than his wife and

sons treated him with disrespect thereby caused mental agony and subsequently,

he was thrown out of the house. This caused him to issue a legal notice calling

2/6

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

C.R.P. No.3833 of 2014

upon the 1st defendant to hand over the possession of suit A Schedule property.

According to the plaintiff, he is an indigent person, he has no source of income to

pay court fee and except suit A Schedule property, there is no other property and

so prayed for treating him as an indigent person and consequently permit him to

conduct the suit informa pauparis without payment of court fee.

4. The defendants filed counter in the said O.P., and submitted that plaintiff

is working as Accountant and earning monthly income of Rs.5000/- and he sold

immovable properties and the suit A Schedule property was being enjoyed by the

plaintiff and respondents jointly. It is stated that the petitioner has wherewithal to

pay the court fee.

5. The trial court while dealing with the application, examined witnesses

and marked exhibits/documents. The learned Judge finding that the 1st respondent

filed suit for partition in District Munsif court, Vanur, in O.S.No.82 of 2012 in

respect of the schedule mentioned properties and while that suit is pending, the

present suit is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff as informa pauperis, which may

3/6

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

C.R.P. No.3833 of 2014

result in conflicting judgment. The learned Judge also found that there is no doubt

that the petitioner/plaintiff is having his due share in suit A Schedule property and

his right will be subject to the result of the pending suit in O.S.No.82 of 2012 and

therefore, cannot be treated as an indigent person.

6. In such view of the matter, the Pauper O.P.No.119 of 2012 filed by the

plaintiff came to be dismissed and directed the petitioner to pay the necessary

court fee on or before 30.07.2014.

7.It is a matter of record that the civil revision petition is of the year 2014.

The pauper O.P.is of the year 2012. Before this court, the learned Government

Advocate (Civil Side), produced the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Vanur, dated 11.03.2020. It has been mentioned in the said report that the

revision petitioner is found to be working as Accountant in Jamil Masjid and

earning Rs.7000/- per month ; further he possess terraced house at Kottakuppam

Village and said hou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top