C.R.P.No.3140 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.03.2023

CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

C.R.P.No.3140 of 2019

1.K.Rajagopal

2.K.Nallammal

... Petitioners / Defendants 1&2 /

Respondents 1 & 2

Vs.

1.Thilageswaran @ Thirumalaivasan

2.S.Tamilselvi

3.T.Saravanan

4.P.Kandasamy

5.K.Ashokkumar

6.S.Murugesan

7.N.Ponnusamy

8.The District Collector

Collector Office, Namakkal.

... Respondents /

Plaintiffs, Defendants 3 to 9 /

Petitioner, Respondents 3 to 9

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

of India praying to allow the above CRP and set aside the order and

decretal order dated 18.06.2019 made in P.O.P.N.120 of 2015 on the file of

the Principal District Judge, Namakkal.

1/4

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

C.R.P.No.3140 of 2019

For Petitioners

:

Mr.A.Danyakumar

For Respondents :

R1 to R7 - No appearance

Mr.C.Jayaprakash

Government Advocate [R8]

ORDER

This revision petition is filed by the defendants 1 and 2, challenging the

order of the trial Court dated 18.06.2019 in P.O.P.No.120/2015 declaring

the plaintiff as indigent person and permitted him to file a suit for informa

pauperis.

2. The suit is laid for cancellation of certain settlement deeds and sale deeds

executed by the first defendant and also for partition. The content is that he

does not have the resources to pay the Court fee as the plaintiff has filed a

suit as an indigent person under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC., Evidence

was recorded, and the plaintiff himself has disclosed that the first

defendant, the father of the plaintiff, has settled the 'B' schedule properties

in his name. This is the reason on the basis of which the first defendant

father resisted his son's suit for partition etc., The trial Court after enquiry

has permitted the son to file the suit as an indigent person. This is now

under challenge in this revision.

2/4

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

C.R.P.No.3140 of 2019

3.The respondents have been served, and except the District Collector,

none appeared.

4. Law has not become as cruel as to warrant the sale of a property or

encumbering the only property that the plaintiff may possess to pay a court

fee. Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere with the order of the

trial Court.

5. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.

20.03.2023

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes / No

Speaking order / Non-speaking order

ds

To:

1.The Principal District Judge

Namakkal.

2.The Section Officer

VR Section, High Court, Madras.

3/4

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

C.R.P.No.3140 of 2019

N.SESHASAYEE.J.,

ds

C.R.P.No.3140 of 2019

20.03.2023

4/4

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