Madras High Court
Balu vs Kathavaraya Udayar on 28 September, 2021
CMA.No.2791 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.2791 of 2014
and
MP No.1 of 2014
Balu ...Appellant
vs.
Kathavaraya Udayar ...Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (NA)
of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated
05.08.2014 made in POP No.71 of 2012 on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Villupuram.
For Appellant : Mr. C. Munusamy
For Respondent : Mr. P. Gurunathan
JUDGMENT
(This case was heard through Video Conferencing)
This Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 05.08.2014
passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram in POP No.71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.2791 of 2014
of 2012 rejecting the Petitioner's application under Order 33 Rule (1)
r/w, order 7 Rule 1 of CPC seeking exemption from payment of Court
fees for filing a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/
defendant from interfering with the petitioner's/ plaintiff's peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit “A” schedule property and also
direct the respondent/ defendant to pay a sum of Rs.24,50,000/- as
compensation.
2. Heard Mr.C. Munusamy, learned counsel for Appellant and
Mr.P. Gurunathan, learned counsel for respondent.
3. The appellant/ plaintiff claims that he is an indigent person and
does not have any means to pay Court fee for filing this suit. In such
circumstances, POP No. 71 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff.
4.The learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram under the
impugned order dated 05.08.2014 passed in POP No. 71 of 2012
dismissed the petition by giving the following reasons:
a) during the course of cross examination the
petitioner/ plaintiff has categorically admitted that he is the
owner of the lands situated in Kumaramangalam Village and
those lands are ryotwari lands and there was also a thatched
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.2791 of 2014
house belonging to him and the normal value of the said
lands per cent is Rs.2,00,000/-.
b) The petitioner is the owner of the "A" schedule
property which is the subject matter of lease and is the
subject matter of the suit.
c) even according to the petitioner, per year the lease
amount payable by the respondent is Rs.1,00,000/- .
d) the lease agreement was entered into between the
petitioner and the respondent on 29.12.2010, whereas the
petitioner has filed the suit as an indigent person only in the
year 2012. The petitioner has not stated as to whether he has
received the lease amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for the two years
from 2010 to 2012.
5. By giving the aforesaid reasons, the Trial Court has rejected
petitioner's application filed in Order 33 Rule (1) r/w, Order 7 Rule 1 of
CPC seeking for exemption from payment of Court fee for filing the
proposed suit against the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.2791 of 2014
6. Under Order 33 Rule 1 of CPC, it is for the Appellant to prove
by oral and documentary evidence that he is an indigent person which he
was miserably failed to prove as seen from the evidence available on
record before the Trial Court which has been duly considered by the
Trial Court while dismissing the petition.
7. This Court does not find any infirmity in the findings of the
Trial Court. Accordingly, there is no merit in this Appeal. In the result,
this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently,
the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28.09.2021
(2/2)
ab/vsi2
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
To
1. The Principal District Judge,
Villupuram.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.2791 of 2014
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
ab
C.M.A.No.2791 of 2014
and
MP No.1 of 2014
28.09.2021
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
