ANNIE JOHN, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 18.3.2016 in I.O.P.1/2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the above I.O.P. The parties are referred to as in the IOP.

2. The appellant filed a suit for declaring her title over the suit properties and for declaring that the document Nos.1378/2013 and 2925/2013 of SRO, Thrikkakara, executed in the name of respondents 2 and 3, are nominal documents, which were given as security for the loans advanced to the appellant by the first respondent. The suit was valued at Rs.75,00,000/-and the court fee fixed was Rs.7,78,192/-. It is the case of the appellant that she has insufficient means to pay the court fee, as her only asset is the suit property and the movables listed in I.O.P.

3. The appellant was examined as PW1 and the respondent as RW1. Exts.B1 to B4 were marked. Appellant has deposed that she has no job or income of her own and her only property is the suit property. While appellant was in the box she has admitted that she has received Rs.42,00,000/-, as the sale consideration from the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the first respondent is only a money lender and the documents were executed as securities in favour of respondents 2 and 3, for which she has filed a suit for recovery of the properties covered by those documents on repayment of the loan amount. When respondents 1 to 3 started asserting title over the suit properties, on 14.12.2014, she has demanded the respondents to reconvey the properties. The respondents demanded payment of Rs.42,00,000/-with interest from the appellant for reconveying the property. Hence, appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from forcefully evicting her from the plaint schedule properties and for passing a decree fixing the liability of the appellant at Rs.17,67,397/-with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the IOP is not maintainable, either in law or on facts. According to the respondents, the appellant was having property to an extent of 21.79 cents in Vazhakkala village. The third respondent purchased about six cents of property from the appellant in the year 2006. In the year 2013, the third respondent purchased 3.647 cents of property and the remaining extent of the property owned by the appellant was 10 cents with a double storied building. In the year 2013, the appellant again approached the respondents 2 and 3 and agreed to sell the balance 10 cents of land and an agreement for sale was executed on 13.5.2013. Thereafter the appellant executed a sale deed in favour of respondents 2 and 3 for a total consideration of Rs.40,00,000/-. The respondents had availed a loan of Rs.30,00,000/-from State Bank of India to mobilize the sale consideration.

5. Now the respondents contend that the appellant is in possession of the aforesaid sale consideration and also receives rent from the fourth respondent/tenant. She occupies the ground floor of the building on a rental arrangement. But, even after the expiry of 11 months, the appellant has not vacated the ground floor, for which respondents 2 and 3 filed a suit as O.S.282/2015 before Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam for recovery of possession.

6. Heard Smt.Ranju A.T., the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Martin K.Jose, the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. The only question to be considered is, whether the appellant is having sufficient means to pay the court fee of Rs.7,78,192/-. The suit has been filed as IOP by invoking Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. Order 33 is an enabling provision which allows filing of a suit by an indigent person without paying the court fee at the initial stage. If the plaintiff ultimately succeeds in the suit, the court would calculate the amount of court fee, which would have been paid by the plaintiff