Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Ramesam, J.
Thanu Pillai and Anr.
Versus
Nellathayammal and Ors.
Decided On : 16.02.1934
Paupers - Evidence of Property Value - Court's Discretion
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to sue as paupers due to their heavily mortgaged properties, some of which were the subject of suits. The court considered whether the petitioners could raise substantial funds from their properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the previous order and directed the petition to be disposed of with reference to the remarks made by the judge. The court emphasized the need for evidence to judge whether the petitioners could raise money on their properties and allowed the plaintiffs to adduce evidence. The defendants were given the opportunity to cross-examine and show if the plaintiffs could raise money. The court also mentioned its discretion to grant time to pay court fees if the plaintiffs were found not to be paupers.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners could sue as paupers based on the value of their heavily mortgaged properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for evidence to judge the petitioners' ability to raise money on their properties and allowed for cross-examination by the defendants. The court also highlighted its discretion to grant time to pay court fees if the plaintiffs were found not to be paupers.
Final Decision: The court set aside the previous order and directed the petition to be disposed of with reference to the judge's remarks, allowing the plaintiffs to adduce evidence and the defendants to cross-examine. The court also mentioned its discretion to grant time to pay court fees if the plaintiffs were found not to be paupers.
Ramesam, J.
1. I think the proper test in a case of this kind is laid down by Walsh, J., in Sundarathammal v. Paramaswami Asari 1933 Mad. 883. It is not, to my mind, so much a question whether they have this power in the abstract but whether in the concrete circumstances of this base they could succeed in raising anything substantial by exercising it.
2. I agree with these remarks. It is true that the petitioners have considerable properties. They are all heavily mortgaged - some with possession. Some of the mortgages are the subject of suits. In the circumstances, evidence is necessary to enable one to judge whether any money can be raised on the properties. The plaintiffs should be allowed to adduce the evidence and the defendants may by cross-examination show, if they can, that plaintiffs can and ought to raise money. If it is reasonable to hold that plaintiffs cannot raise the amount necessary for the suit, they will be allowed to sue as paupers, and conversely.
3. I set aside the order and direct the petition to be disposed of with reference to the above remarks, according to law. The costs of this petition will abide the result. If the Court finds the plaintiffs are not paupers, it has discretion to grant time to pay court-fees. That is the practice here and in every Court and is supported by Section 149, Criminal P.C.
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
