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.

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 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 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 Court fee. Above all, the respondent herein is the owner of the land and building worth Rs.1 Crore. While so, he cannot be termed as a pauper and accordingly, the revision petitioners prayed for dismissal of the pauper original petition.

5. Before the trial Court, both sides have let in evidence. The respondent herein examined himself as P.W.1 and documents were marked as Ex.P1. and Ex.P2. On the other hand, the first revision petitioner herein examined himself as R.W.1 and documents were marked as R.1 to R.4. 6. The trial Court on appreciation of the documentary evidence allowed the pauper original petition by declaring the respondent herein as pauper. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

8. It is seen from the order, which is impugned in the Civil