IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Jackson
In Re: A.S. Radakrishna Iyer
Versus
Unknown
Decided On : 7 March, 1924
In forma pauperis - Legal representative - Right to sue in forma pauperis
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied to excuse a delay in presenting an application to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis. After the petitioner's death, a new applicant sought to be brought on record as the petitioner, claiming the right to sue in forma pauperis.
Finding of the Court:
The court referred to previous rulings and held that the representative of a pauper cannot continue the suit in forma pauperis if not a pauper himself. The court emphasized that the assignee of the pauper must pay the necessary court fees or be declared entitled to sue in forma pauperis before continuing the proceedings.
Issues: The key issue was whether the new applicant, as the legal representative, had the right to sue in forma pauperis.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the legal representative must establish their own status as a pauper or pay the court fees before continuing the proceedings in forma pauperis.
Final Decision: The court ruled that the new applicant must either pay the necessary court fees or be declared entitled to sue in forma pauperis before continuing the proceedings.
Jackson, J.
1. Bangaru Govinda Ayyar, petitioner in C.M.P. No. 2199 of 1923 applied to excuse 39 days delay, in presenting S.R. No. 12691, an application to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis. He died and one Radakrishna Aiyar has applied to be brought on record as petitioner, in C.M.P. No. 2199 of 1923. Apparently, he only wishes to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis, as having derived that right from Bangaru Govinda Ayyar. He does not allege that he himself is a pauper. It has been ruled in Manji Rajuji v. Khandoo Baloo (1912) 36 Bom. 279, that the representative of a pauper cannot continue the suit in forma pauperis if not a pauper himself : cf. Lalit Mohan Mandal v. Satish Chandra Das (1906) 33 Cal. 1163. The old Calcutta ruling which Devar, J., in Manji Rajuji v. Khandoo Baloo (1912) 36 Bom. 279 says he cannot understand, Bhasbut Boss v. Buloam Doss 3 W.R. mis. 20, does not really present much difficulty, A party died and his legal representative applied to be placed on record. The District Munsif embarked upon an enquiry, whether the legal representative was or was not a pauper, and meanwhile the suit abated. The High Court held that so long as he was the actual legal representative, he should have been brought on record, independently of a collateral inquiry, whether he should sue as a pauper or not. In ruling "there was really no necessity for an inquiry whether the applicant was a pauper or not" the High Court means such inquiry was not a necessary precedent to admitting the applicant to carry on the suit. The High Court did not mean that it was not a necessary precedent to admitting him as a pauper. For that, of course, there would have to be an enquiry. The assignee of the pauper must pay the necessary Court fees, or else have himself qua pauper declared entitled to sue in forma pauperis before continuing the proceedings. Time allowed for paying Court-fees is one month from this date.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.