IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 05.11.2019

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

C.M.A.No.3609 of 2012 and

M.P.No.1 of 2012

Ramachandran

... Appellant /Plaintiff

Vs.

1.Madurai Veeran

2.Neimur Rahman

3.Mohammed Kauser

... Respondents/Defendants 1 to 3

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.

For Appellant

: Mr.M.Venkadeshan

For Respondents : Mr.Prakash Adiapadam for R1

Mr.Mutharasu for R2 and R3

J U D G M E N T

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 grand father 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,

1

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