Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
Karthikeyan - Minor Adopted son of Late Janaki N. Rajaramier, by his natural mother and next friend. J.G. Narmatha wife of J.N. Goverthanan
Versus
K.K. Ramesh Babu & Others
C.R.P. No. 2264 of 1989 & A.A.O. No. 757 of 1989
Decided On :Decided on : 05-11-1996
INDIGENT PERSON - SUIT FOR DECLARATION - COURT FEES - SUFFICIENCY OF MEANS - ASSESSMENT - NEXT-FRIEND'S OR NATURAL PARENTS' MEANS - IRRELEVANCE - COURT FEES ACT, 1955, SEC. 25(D).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a minor, filed a suit for declaration that the alienation of suit properties by respondents 11 to 15 in favor of respondents 1 to 9 was not binding on him and was not valid beyond the lifetime of the 11th respondent. He sought permission to institute the suit as an indigent person, valuing the suit at Rs. 32,000/- and paying a court fee of Rs. 2,401/- under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. The court below, after considering the evidence, found that the petitioner had sufficient means to pay court fees and directed him to pay the balance court fee. The petitioner challenged this order in a civil miscellaneous appeal and a civil revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to sue as an indigent person and that the court below erred in considering the means of the petitioner's next-friend and natural parents in determining his sufficiency of means. The court also held that the court fee was payable only under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, and not on the market value of the properties.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to sue as an indigent person. 2. Whether the court below erred in considering the means of the petitioner's next-friend and natural parents in determining his sufficiency of means. 3. Whether the court fee was payable only under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, and not on the market value of the properties.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to sue as an indigent person, relying on the definition of an indigent person under Order 33, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court noted that the petitioner was a minor and that his adoption deed had been cancelled by the 11th respondent. The court also noted that the petitioner's natural parents were not on good terms with the 11th respondent and that they had filed a petition to cancel the permission granted by the court to the 11th respondent to sell the properties. The court held that, in these circumstances, the petitioner could not be said to have sufficient means to pay court fees. 2. The court held that the court below erred in considering the means of the petitioner's next-friend and natural parents in determining his sufficiency of means. The court relied on several decisions of various high courts, which held that the means of the next-friend or the natural father of the petitioner should not be taken into consideration when determining whether the petitioner is an indigent person. 3. The court held that the court fee was payable only under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, and not on the market value of the properties. The court noted that the suit was for a declaration that the alienation of the suit properties was not binding on the petitioner and was not valid beyond the lifetime of the 11th respondent. The court held that this suit fell under Section 25(d) of the Act, which provides for a court fee to be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees for hundred, whichever is higher.
Final Decision: The court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal and the civil revision petition, set aside the order of the court below, and permitted the petitioner to sue as an indigent person. The court also directed the court below to register the petition as a plaint under Order 33, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and proceed with the same in accordance with law. The court further directed the court below to refund the amount of Rs. 2,401/- paid by the petitioner as court fee under protest.
1. Petitioner in C.P. No. 72 of 1988, on the file of Sub Court, Madurai, is the appellant in the C.M.A. and the petitioner in the connected C.R.P.
2. Parties herein-after will be referred to according to their rank in the O.P.
3. Petitioner filed a suit before the Subordinate Judge of Madurai under Order 33, Rule 1, C.P.C., asking permission to institute the suit as an indigent person. Following reliefs were sought for in the proposed plaint:—
“a) granting a declaration that the alienation of suit item 1 of Schedule ‘A’ hereunder by the respondents 11 to 15/defendants 11 to 15 in favour of respondents 1 to 9/defendants 1 to 9 by registered sale deeds, is not binding on the Petitioner/Plaintiff and is not valid beyond the life time of 11th respondents/11th defendant;
b) granting a declaration that the alienation of suit item 11 of Schedule ‘A’ hereunder by the 11th respondent/11th defendant in favour of respondents 10 and 14/defendants 10 and 14 by registered sale deeds is not binding on the petitioner/plaintiff and is not valid beyond the life time of the 11th defendant/11th respondent;
c) directing the defendants/respondents to pay to the plaintiff/petitioner the costs of suit;
d) and granting such other further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”
In paragraph 11 of the said O.P., he said thus:—
“The petitioner values the suit for purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 32,000/- and a Court fee of Rs. 2,401/- is payable thereon under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. 1955.”
4. It is averred in the petition that the plaint properties originally belonged to one Janaki N. Rajaramier. Respondents 11 and 12 are his grand-daughters through his daughter Lakshmi Ammal. After narrating the relationship, it is further said in paragraph 14 of the petition that the 11th respondent had no children, and her husband Janaki N. Rajaramier passed away on 21.11.1987. While her husband was alive, the 11th respondent along with her husband took the petitioner in adoption on 26.4.1982 after performing necessary religious rites and the adoption was also recorded in a deed of adoption executed three days after. The adoption deed was executed between the 11th respondent and her husband late Janaki N. Rajaramier on the one hand and the natural parents of the petitioner on the other. In the adoption deed, it was recorded that in the plaint A Schedule properties along with other properties, the 11th respondent will be entitled to a right of enjoyment and the vested remainder by the plaintiff. It is s aid that the 11th respondent and her husband had only a limited right of enjoyment till their lifetime without powers of alienation. It is said that Janaki N. Rajaramier filed a petition before the District Court, Madurai as O.P. No. 112 of 1984 requesting for permission to sell the properties described in ‘A’ Schedule belonging to the adopted son. In that petition before the District Court, he averred that the properties belonged to the 11th respondent under the settlement deed, and the petitioner is entitled only to a half share. The 11th defendant also did not oppose the petition, and no notice was given to any other person. Petitioners natural parents came to know about the permission granted by Court and, therefore, they filed a petition before that Court for cancelling the permission. Though it was contested, the District Court cancelled the permission already granted. In view of the cancellation of the order, the 11th respondent became inimical towards the petitioner and his natural parents, with the result, the adoption deed itself was cancelled by the 11th respondent on 3.12.1987. It is said that since it is void ab initio, there is no necessity for getting it cancelled. Thereafter, the 11th respondent executed various documents in favour of various persons. It is said that those documents cannot be valid beyond the lifet
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
