Remanded

U.M.Vidhyasegar v. S. Kumararajapandian

Madras HC9 Aug 2021CRP/354/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a Civil Revision Petition challenging an application for pauper status in a property suit. The High Court refused to strike off the petition and held that the question of the applicant's financial capacity is a fact to be decided by the trial court via proper enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The pauper petition was remanded to the Principal District Judge to dispose of it on merits within three months.

U.M.Vidhyasegar Vs S. Kumararajapandian — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRP(PD)No.354 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.08.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)No.354 of 2021
and CMP No.3049 of 2021
1.U.M.Vidhyasegar
2.S.Rajeswari ... Petitioners
vs
1.S.Kumararajapandian
2.The District Collector,
Coimbatore District
... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

¶7

India to struck of the P.O.P No.192 of 2020 in unnumbered O.S.No. of 2020

¶8

on the file of Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Prakasam For 1st respondent: No appearance For 2nd respondent: Dr.S.Suriya Government Advocate

¶10

1/7

¶11

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

¶12

CRP(PD)No.354 of 2021

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This petition is filed to struck of the Pauper Original Petition No.192 of 2020 in the Unnumbered O.S.No.. of 2020 on the file of Principal District Court, Coimbatore.

¶15

The case of the petitioners is that they are the defendants in the unnumbered suit on the file of Principal District Court, Coimbatore. The suit was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff, claiming himself to be a pauper. The specific case of the first respondent/plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to his father through a Sale Deed vide Document No.3968/1961 dated 10.07.1961. The 1st respondent/plaintiff's father had

¶16

executed a Settlement Deed vide Document No.2057/1998 dated 16.07.1998.

¶17

The first respondent/plaintiff was the distributor of Aachi Masala. To develop his business, he secured an Overdraft of Rs.22,50,000/- from State Bank of Hyderabad, V.O.C Park Branch. The first respondent/plaintiff was unable to repay the loan amount. Therefore, the bank had brought the suit property, which was given as security for the loan, for sale and the sale

¶18

2/7

¶19

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

¶20

CRP(PD)No.354 of 2021

¶21

notice was published in the Newspaper on 28.07.2018. Subsequently, the first respondent/plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards part of the loan and therefore, the auction was cancelled.

¶22

Meanwhile, since the first respondent/plaintiff was unable to pay the balance amount to the bank, the petitioners/defendants came forward to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the first respondent/plaintiff in lieu of executing a mortgage deed by the first respondent/plaintiff. The petitioners/defendants suggested that a sale deed can be executed in favour of them and on repayment of the amount, a reverse sale deed will be executed in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid to the bank on 29.10.2018 and a sale agreement was made and the first respondent/plaintiff was forced to sign in pages nos.3 and 4 of the sale agreement.

¶23

The defendants promised to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the first respondent/plaintiff and execute the sale deed. Accordingly, a sale deed was executed vide Document No.6383 of 2019 and when the first respondent/plaintiff demanded the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, the petitioners did not pay and tried to take over the

¶24

3/7

¶25

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

¶26

CRP(PD)No.354 of 2021

¶27

possession of the suit property. The petitioners/defendants are also trying to make construction in the property. Therefore, the suit was filed seeking a declaration that the sale deed registered in the name of the petitioners/defendants on 04.07.2019 to be declared as null and void and also granting a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for other reliefs.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants

¶29

that the suit was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff along with a petition in I.A.No.192 of 2020 under Order 33 Rule 1 to 3 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking permission of the Court to declare that the first respondent/plaintiff

¶30

is a pauper and that he is not able to pay the court fee. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants.

¶31

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants

¶32

that the first respondent/plaintiff has sold only half of his share and he is the owner of another half share and he has the capacity to pay the court fee. However, he has filed the petition under Order 33 Rule 1 to 3 of the Civil

¶33

4/7

¶34

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

¶35

CRP(PD)No.354 of 2021

¶36

Procedure Code only to avoid paying the court fee and therefore, it has to be struck off.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶38

The suit was filed seeking the aforesaid reliefs by the first

¶39

respondent/plaintiff, claiming himself to be a pauper, saying that he is not in a position to pay court fee.

¶40

The learned Government Advocate submits that the first

¶41

respondent/plaintiff has sufficient means to pay the court fee.

¶42

The issue as to whether the first respondent/plaintiff has sufficient

¶43

means to pay the court fee or not is a question of fact and it has to be decided by conducting proper enquiry and investigation into the means of the first respondent/plaintiff.

¶44

Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the

¶45

petitioners/defendants may raise this issue before the Court below and

¶46

5/7

¶47

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

¶48

CRP(PD)No.354 of 2021

¶49

produce materials in support of their case that the first respondent/plaintiff has sufficient means to pay the Court fee.

¶50

The learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore is directed to dispose of P.O.P No.192 of 2020 on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51

With the above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09.08.2021 sr Index:no speaking order/non-speaking order To

¶52

The Principal District Judge, Coimbatore

¶53

6/7

¶54

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

¶55

CRP(PD)No.354 of 2021

¶56

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J. ,

¶57

¶58

C.R.P.(PD)No.354 of 2021
09.08.2021

¶59

7/7

¶60

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

U.M.Vidhyasegar v. S. Kumararajapandian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.M.Vidhyasegar v. S. Kumararajapandian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Ramachandran Vs a.M.Hameedhu Maraikayar

P.Dhanapal Vs R.Ganesha Reddy

G.Jeevanantham, Vs Uma Rani

Mohanan Vs Adington Premkumar

A.Aadityan Vs B.Sridevi

Kamalchand Vs Payalkumari@Sushmitha