← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/3140/2019dismissed

K.Rajagopal v. Thilageswaran@Thirumalaivasan

2023-03-20Honourable Mr Justice N. Seshasayee4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.03.2023 CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE 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

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

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

N.SESHASAYEE.J., ds 20.03.2023 4/4