SUJATHA VENKATESAN vs MANJULA SRINIVASAN
Bench:
Justice V.M Velumani
Issue:
Can the petitioners/appellants be declared as indigent persons?
Facts:
- According to the petitioners, they do not have means to pay the Court fee of Rs.15,12,923.50 and hence they filed for indigent person before the Principal District Court, Trichy.
- They mentioned a list of movable and immovable properties owned by them. The house property was on the name of parents of 1st petitioner, there were residing there and the jewels on the receipt of Rs. 14,00,000 from the respondents, were redeemed and the creditors were paid off, the balance was kept for utilizing the same towards family necessity.
- The respondents filed an application under Order 33 Rule 5 of CPC, to reject the indigent persons appeal read with Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC, on the ground that the petitioners had sufficient means to pay the court fee. An oral evidence on the side pf the petitioners was let in.
- The Trial Court, considering the averments in the Indigent Persons petition, the objections raised by the respondents and the evidence let in by either side, dismissed the petition of Indigent persons and directed them to pay the court fees.
- Aggrieved over the same Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed in Madras High Court (the present appeal).
Appellants/Petitioners Arguments:
- Reiterated the grounds raised in the appeal and submitted the possession of immovable and movable properties, stated that they would not amount to capacity of the appellants to pay the court fees and the trail court failed to see that; they cannot raise funds for court fees.
- As one of the properties is purchased by 1st petitioner’s parents and they reside their no rental income in incurred and the other properties are in joint name of petitioner and her sisters, hence cannot be mortgaged or sold.
- It was also contended that the learned Judge erred in holding that the appellants have capacity to pay the Court fee on the ground that they are in possession of electronics and other immovable properties and the Judge failed to see that possession of properties does not mean that the petitioners have ability to pay the court fees. Moreover, the District Collector did not file any report regarding the financial status of the petitioner.
- The Counsel relied upon the judgments; Sanjeevayya Nagar Co-operative Housing Building Society vs S. Malla Reddy and Mathai M Paikeday vs C.K Antony.
Judgment:
Before declaring the Judgment the Court carefully explained the term indigent as mentioned under Rule 1 Order 33 of CPC. Apart from the said immovable properties, the petitioners owned 450 grams of gold jewels and properties valued more than Rs.1000/- and they were not even subject matter of the suit. The first case referred was not applicable but the second one was. The Court found that the petitioners did not prove the insufficiency to pay the Court fee and hence they cannot be termed as indigent persons. The connected CMC and CMP were dismissed and the appellants/petitioners were directed to pay necessary Court fee within a period of four weeks.
