M SAKUBAR SATHIK Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the petitioner in Indigent O.P. No.4 of 2015. He presented the plaint for declaration of sale deed dated 10.09.2014 bearing document No.5591/2014 executed by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the second respondent from encumbering the suit property. The appellant has filed the said Indigent O.P.No.4 of 2015 seeking to permit him to file the suit without paying the court fee due on the plaint by adjudging him as indigent person.

(2.) The first and second respondents filed separate counter affidavits and denied various averments made by the appellant on merits. The respondents contended that the appellant has sufficient means to pay the court fee. The second respondent contended that the appellant borrowed huge amount from the first respondent and executed power of attorney in favour of the first respondent. The respondents further contended that the appellant's two sons were carrying on business in foreign country and after coming to India, they are carrying on business in India. The appellant is associating with the said business along with his sons and earning huge amount. He has sufficient means to pay the court fee and prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition.

(3.) Before the learned Judge, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and the respondents themselves examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and both the appellants and the respondents did not mark any documents. At the time of arguments before the learned Judge, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was working as a Coolie in a hotel and earning a sum of Rs. 4000/- per month. Apart from that, the appellant has no income or means to pay the court fee.