SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Mad) 132

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K N NATARAJAN
P.V. Chandrasekharan and Others - Appellant
Versus
Thirumalai Chit Funds and Others - Respondent
Case No : C.M.P. No.15514 of 1986 In App. S.R. No.42056 of 1986
Decided On : 04 March 1988

Advocates Appeared:R.M. Krishna Raju, B.T. Seshadri, Advocates.

Sufficient fund available for paying Court-fee.

Headnote:Thirumalai Chit Funds by Partner K.L. Balakrishnan and others .....Respondent(s)

       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order 33, Rules 1 and 2 - Leave to file appeal as indigent person sought-Held, sufficient fund available for paying Court-fee.

       

Judgment :-

This petition is filed by the appellants, who are the defendants, to grant leave to them to file the appeal as indigent persons, againstsons, against the judgment in O.S. 361 of 1983, Sub Court, Salem. It is alleged in the affidavit filed by the second petitioner, for himself and on behalf of other appellants, in support of the said application that a preliminary decree was passed against them directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 7,41, 699.18 together with interest at 6 per cent per annum on Rs. 5,01,600 from the date of the decree till the date of realisation, on the basis of deposit of title deeds on 22-10-1982 and that the said suit was decreed on incorrect appreciation of facts and law. They have no means or resources to pay the requisite court fee of Rs. 56003.75. It is further alleged that apart from an investment of Rs. 28,000 with the United Solvent Extractions Pvt. Ltd., at Duriva Kurichi and a monthly income of Rs. 200 he has no other movable or immovable properties. The appellants have no properties and they have not alienated or transferred any property within two months prior to the filing of the above appeal and they have also not entered into any contract with any one in respect of the subject-matter of the appeal. Hence, they pray for permission to file the appeal as indigent persons. The said application is resisted by the respondents. The 6th respondent filed the counter-affidavit for himself and other respondents denying the allegations stated in the affidavit fled by the second petitioner. It is contended that the father of the petitioners left O.80.5 Hec. in Valayamadevi Village, Attur taluk and after the death of their father, the petitioners became the owners of the properties and the same have been registered in their names. The said properties are worth more than Rs. 1.5 lakhs, and the 6th respondent is willing to purchase the properties for Rs. 1 lakh if sold by the petitioners and also pay a sum of Rs. 56,000 towards court-fee. It is further alleged that petitioners 1 and 2 (P.V. Chandrasekharan and P.V. Srinivasan) have got shares of the total face value of Rs. 80,000 with the United Solvent Extractions Pvt. Ltd., at Deviakurichi, that the market value of those shares is Rs.2 lakhs and that the sixth respondent is prepared to purchase those shares if transferred in his name for Rs. one lakh. It is further alleged that the 4th petitioner Janardhana Gupta is conducting business in oiled and de-oiled rice bran while the second petitioner P.V. Srinivasan is running a same business under the name and style of Sri Sudarsan Enterprises.

2. Findings were called for from the Master with regard to the means of the petitioners. Learned Master after recording the evidence of P. W. 1 and R. W. 1 has submitted his findings to the effect that-

"On consideration of the evidence adduced at the time of enquiry, I find that the first and second petitioners own shares worth of Rs. 80,000 and the same is available for sale and there is intending buyer to purchase it for Rs. 54,000 and the petitioners own 2.16 cents of land in Vanayamadevi village and that too is available for sale and there is intending buyer to purchase it for Rs. one lakh with mortgage or without mortgage and as such the petitioners are not indigent persons." *

Again the matter came up for hearing before this Court after receipt of the said findings. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.M. Krishna Raju, submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioners are not stated to have possessed of any ready cash on the date of the plaint, from the mere fact that they are possessed of certain properties and the respondents offered to purchase the properties and in evidence P. W. 1 accepted the offer, it cannot be held that the petitioners are possessed of sufficient means and they are bound to sell the properties under restraint. According to the learned counsel, for sale of the shares, it has to be approved by the Board of Directors and that















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top