Gujarat High Court
Judgename :P.N.BHAGWATI, J.B.MEHTA
CHIMANLAL BHOGILAL PANCHANI - Appellant
Versus
CHANDANBEN MANCHAND SHAH - Respondent
Civil Revision 517 of 1962
Decided On : 08/11/1964
Code of Civil Procedure – Order 7 Rule 4 , Rule 1 to 4 of Order 33, Order 2 Rule 5 – Court Fees Act – Forma Pauperis – Civil Revision Applications – This revision petition raises an interesting question as to whether a trustee who has got no trust property in his hands could sue as a pauper on behalf of the trust even if he is possessed of sufficient means in his individual capacity – Held, Court is therefore of the view that the correct test in such cases is to see in what capacity a person sues and whether in that capacity he is a pauper – The trustees could therefore sue on behalf of the trust provided they had no sufficient trust moneys in their hand to pay the necessary court fees even though in their individual capacity they may not be paupers – Resources of the trustees themselves in their individual capacity would be entirely irrelevant – The learned Judge was right in holding that applicant No. 1 was present in the Court and the application must be deemed to have been presented by him – In the case of co-trustees it is sufficient if anyone of the co-trustees applies to the Court and remains present personally for examination by Court as required under Rule 4 all the trustees having a common cause – In these circumstances the learned Judge was wrong in holding that the application was not properly presented – In the result the order of the lower Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Judge for being disposed of according to law in the light of our observations – Rule is made absolute –Petition Allowed
( 1 ) THIS revision petition raises an interesting question as to whether a trustee who has got no trust property in his hands could sue as a pauper on behalf of the trust even if he is possessed of sufficient means in his individual capacity.
( 2 ) ONE Mohanlal Nihalchand the deceased had made a will on 16 March 1949 by which he had given the life interest to one Chanchalben and after her death the estate was to go over to the various trusts. Chanchalben died on 8th September 1958. There were three executors of the said will one of whom was Laherchand who expired on 22nd April 1958 Therefore the present two executors have filed a suit in forma pauperis as plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 as the trustees under the will against the main defendants 1 and 2. Defendant No. 1 is the testators sisters daughter and defendant No. 2 is her husband. The suit is for recovery of the properties of the trust in possession of the opponents worth about Rs. 36 0 Opponents Nos. 1 and 2 and other opponents and the Government having taken up a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this application the learned Civil Judge had come to the conclusion that such trustees who were admittedly not paupers having got sufficient means in their individual capacity for payment of the court fees they could not sue as paupers on behalf of the trust. He also came to the conclusion that plaintiff No. 2 was not present at the time of the presentation of the application and therefore the application was not properly presented as required under Rule 2 of 0. 33 of the Civil Procedure Code hereinafter referred to as the Code. Accordingly he has rejected the application of the trustees and has directed them to pay the requisite court fees on the suit. The said trustees have therefore filed the present revision application.
( 3 ) ORDER 33 of the Code prescribes the procedure for institution of a suit by a pauper. Rule 1 provides that subject to the following provisions any suit may be instituted by a pauper. The explanation provides that a person is a pauper when he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit or where no such fee is prescribed when he is not entitled to property worth one hundred rupees other than his necessary wearing apparel and the subject matter of the suit. Rule 2 provides that every application for permission to sue as a pauper shall contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits and Rule 3 sets out the mode of presentation of the application and it provides that the application shall be presented to the Court by the applicant in person unless he is exempted from appearing in Court in which case the application may be presented by an authorized agent who can answer all material questions relating to the application and who may be examined in the same manner as the party represented by him might have been examined had such party attended in person. Rule 4 provides for the examination of the applicant or his agent as aforesaid regarding the merits of the claim and the property of the applicant. Rule 5 directs the Court to reject the application if any of the prohibitions mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) exists. Thus Order 33 prescribes the method for institution of a suit by a pauper without payment of the institution fees as prescribed in the Court Fees Act. It is a provision intended to facilitate the institution of suits so that justice is not denied to any person merely because he has no means to pay even the institution fees. Some other provisions of the Code may also be noted at the outset. Order 7 Rule 4 provides that where the plaintiff sues in a representative character the plaintiff shall show not only that he has an actual existing interest in the subject matter but that he has taken steps necessary to enable him to institute a suit concerning it. Order 2 Rule 5 also provides that no claim by or against an executor administrator or heir
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.