Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.HARIPRASAD, ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JJ.
Jagadamma, W/O.Ramakrishnan Nair – Appellant
Versus
Sheela, W/o.Saseendranath – Respondent
FAO.No.114 of 2020
Decided on : 07-05-2021
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Rules 1, 2 and 3 - Order XXXIII - Court Fees Act, 1870 – Civil matter – Land Issue - Appellant alleges that two documents were caused to be executed in names of her daughters (respondents) by perpetrating fraud and misrepresentation regarding the contents of the documents- Appellant is absolute owner in possession of plaint A and B schedule properties having an extent of 4 acres 56 cents and 70 cents respectively. She derived title to these properties as per a partition deed and purchase certificates of Land issued by Special, Land Tribunal.
Finding of the court: Rule 1A of Order XXXIII of Code mandates that every inquiry into question, whether or not a person is an indigent person, shall be made, in first instance, by chief ministerial officer of Court, unless Court otherwise directs. Court has discretion to adopt report of such officer as its own finding or, may, itself make an inquiry into question of indigency - Where expression 'sufficient means' occurring in Order XXXIII Rule 1 of Code is interpreted to mean ability or capacity of a person, in ordinary course, to raise money by available lawful means to pay court fee - Court find no legal infirmity in the finding of the court below, especially when there are reasons to find from her own pleadings that the appellant has not disclosed the true facts to establish her indigency. Moreover appellant failed to personally testify or adduce any evidence before court to establish that omission to include all her properties in application was a bona fide mistake.
Result: Appeal dismissed
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles and findings are as follows:
Practice and Procedure for Indigent Persons: The court emphasized that inquiries into whether a person qualifies as indigent are primarily conducted by the chief ministerial officer of the court, with the court retaining discretion. The determination hinges on whether the person possesses sufficient means, beyond exempted property, to pay the court fee. The expression "sufficient means" is interpreted as the capacity to raise lawful funds to cover court fees, not necessarily complete poverty (!) (!) .
Duty of Full Disclosure: The applicant claiming indigency must disclose all relevant assets, both movable and immovable. Suppression of material facts or assets disqualifies the applicant from being considered indigent. The court will reject applications where material omissions are not bona fide or are intended to conceal assets that could cover court fees (!) (!) (!) .
Material Facts and Suppression: The court held that suppression of material facts, such as ownership of significant assets or income, disqualifies an applicant from claiming indigency. An applicant's failure to testify or produce evidence to support their claim further undermines their case (!) (!) .
Legal Consequences of Suppression: Suppressing true facts regarding assets, income, or property ownership can lead to disallowance of the indigency plea and rejection of the application to sue as an indigent person. The court's assessment includes examining the applicant's pleadings, evidence, and any relevant reports or affidavits (!) .
Court’s Discretion and Fair Play: The court has the discretion to either accept the report of the officer investigating indigency or to conduct its own inquiry. The process aims to balance the rights of a genuine indigent litigant against preventing frivolous or vexatious litigation based on false claims of indigency (!) (!) .
Importance of Honesty and Bona Fide Claims: The court underscored that indigency claims must be made in good faith, with full disclosure of assets. Any attempt to conceal assets or provide false information can lead to rejection of the application and potentially bar the litigant from pursuing the suit in forma pauperis (!) (!) .
Impact of Suppressed Facts on Legal Proceedings: The presence of undisclosed assets or income, especially when substantial, can be grounds for rejecting the indigency application, as it indicates that the applicant has the means to pay court fees and is not truly indigent. This ensures that only those genuinely lacking resources benefit from in forma pauperis provisions (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal principles reaffirm that an applicant must fully disclose all assets and income to qualify as indigent. Suppression of material facts disqualifies the applicant, and the court's primary concern is to prevent false claims while safeguarding genuine indigent litigants' rights.
JUDGMENT :
Hariprasad, J.
No civilized society could view indigency with disdain. From time immemorial, our ancestors too were compassionate to indigent persons. This view was statutorily recognized for the first time in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, despite the operation of the Court Fees Act, 1870 with full vigour. When the Code of 1882 was completely replaced by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (in short 'the Code') the legislative empathy towards such persons (then described as paupers) was actually enlarged. Under the Code, in order to qualify a person indigent, he need not be in abject poverty. Legal requirement under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code to consider a person indigent is that he should not be possessed of sufficient means (other than property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject matter of the suit) to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in a suit that he proposes to file.
2. Familial disharmony is the root cause of this litigation. Appellant is the mother of the respondents. Appellant alleges that two documents were caused to be executed in the names of her daughters (respondents) by perpetrating fraud and misrepresentation regarding the contents of the documents. According to the appellant, her daughters in cahoots with their husbands committed the fraud and misrepresentation. And, therefore she approached the trial court with a suit by invoking the provisions under Order XXXIII of the Code for setting aside the two settlement deeds alleged to have been executed by her in the names of the respondents. As a consequential relief, a permanent prohibitory injunction decree is also sought for.
3. Facts briefly stated are thus: Appellant is the absolute owner in possession of the plaint A and B schedule properties having an extent of 4 acres 56 cents and 70 cents respectively. She derived title to these properties as per a partition deed bearing No.2007 of 1969 of Kothamangalam SRO and purchase certificates bearing Nos.2422 of 1976 of the Land Tribunal, Kothamangalam and 6578 of 1976 issued by the Special Tahsildar, Land Tribunal, Ernakulam.
4. Appellant's husband expired on 06.04.2016. She has a son, who is pursuing legal profession. Respondents are married away and they are well settled in life.
5. Appellant stated to have executed a registered Will in the year 2006, bequeathing certain properties belonging to her in the names of the respondents and her son. During 2016, the respondents approached the appellant many a time requesting to settle the properties as per the terms of the bequest so that they could enjoy the properties in praesenti. As per the aforementioned Will, 1 acre 52 cents each, out of a total area of 4 acres 56 cents of land, was bequeathed to each respondent and her son. Appellant had no objection in executing a deed of settlement in accordance with the terms of the Will. Appellant was aged 82 years at the time of institution of suit. She, being aged and ailing, bonafide believed that the respondents would not betray her and therefore agreed to execute the settlement deed in tune with the Will. Without reading over the documents and without explaining the contents thereof, she was made to execute them by the respondents and their husbands. Later, she came to understand that more extent of properties had been included in the documents under challenge than agreed to and such items were included by practising deception, fraud and misrepresentation on her.
6. Respondents filed separate written statements denying all the allegations levelled in the plaint. According to them, the appellant is a literate lady and after fully understanding the contents of the documents she executed them at her own free will. 2nd defendant in this suit (2nd respondent) had filed O.S.No.641 of 2015 before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Muvattupuzha, a suit for partition of her share in the property. Appellant's contention that the property exclusively belonged to her is not correct. In
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
