A plaintiff who deliberately and fraudulently suppresses his or her property in a petition to sue in forma pauperis is not entitled to sue as a pauper.

ORDER :- The point for consideration in this application taken out by the plaintiff under O.14, R.12 of the Original Side Rules is whether he is a pauper within the meaning of Order 33, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Master, against whose order this application has been filed, held against the plaintiff holding that he had intentionally and fraudulently suppressed his interest in a house property at Madurai and that on account of such suppression the plaintiff is not entitled to sue in forma pauperis though he is not possessed of sufficient means to pay the court-fee. The suit is for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property. The court-fee payable comes to about Rs. 40,000 (to be accurate Rs. 39,451-50 P.). The case of the plaintiff is that apart from his interest of 1/8th share in some lands, which share, according to him, is worth only about Rs. 2,000, he has no other property. The defendant alleged in his counter statement that the plaintiff had several properties. He also filed a supplemental counter affidavit stating that the plaintiff had certain shares in a building in Madurai and had deliberately and fraudulently suppressed it in his petition and affidavit. The Master held that the value of the plaintiffs, share in the immoveable properties admittedly belonging to the plaintiff was about Rs. 13,000. He, did not accept the defendant's contention that the plaintiff had any cash or interest in any compensation amount. But he, however, accepted the case of the defendant that the plaintiff deliberately and fraudulently suppressed his interest in the house property at Madurai.

2. After the defendant filed his counter statement pointing out that the plaintiff had a share in a house property at Madurai, the plaintiff did not seek the leave of the Court to file a reply statement controverting that allegation. The supplemental counter statement was filed on 22-9-1967. The plaintiff sold away his share in the Madurai house property on 23-11-1967 in favour of one Ramanathan Chettiar and others for Rs. 9,500. Several prevaricating statements were made by the plaintiff in evidence., when his attention was drawn to that sale. At first he denied that he sold any property after the filing of the counter statement. He subsequently said that the Madurai house property belonged to his joint family and his entire share had been attached by some creditors. He further said that about 7 or 8 days before he gave evidence, some of the creditors attached his share in the house property. When he was questioned specifically he had to admit that he sold his share, but he qualified it by saying that he had to sell it at the instance of some creditors. He also said that he did not realise any amount out of the sale and that the creditors had taken away the amount. When his attention was drawn to the recital in the sale deed that he had received the entire consideration of Rupees 9,500 in cash in the presence of the Sub-Registrar, he admitted the receipt of the amount but said that he did not realise a single paisa and stated that the creditors took away the money from him. When he was asked why he had not disclosed this either in the petition or in his reply statement and why he did not file a supplemental reply he said that since the property had been attached by the creditors and taken away by them he had not stated that in the petition.

3. To show that the entire consideration of Rs. 9,500 realised by him had been taken by his creditors, the plaintiff examined P. W. 2 a close relation to show that he paid Rs. 5,000 to P. W. 2. That payment is said to have been made in discharge of a promissory note Exhibit B-1 which is of the year of 1947 and which is said to have been kept alive by periodical payments. The Master rightly disbelieved this story of payment by the plaintiff to P. W. 2. It is thus clear that the plaintiff deliberately and fraudulently suppressed his interest in the house property not only in the petit