The possession of sufficient means refers to the capacity to raise money and not just the actual possession of the property.

R.BANUMATHI,J

1. Challenge in this appeal is, the dismissal of Pauper O.P.No.10 of 2010 on the file of Principal District Court, Namakkal, whereby the trial Court declined to grant leave to sue as informa pauperis. The plaintiffs are the appellants.

2. The appellants and the respondents are related as under:

Komaragounder |

|| |

KumarasamyChinnusamy Marappan(R2)

| |

| |

| ----------------------

| | |

| M.Balasubramaniam M.Durairaj

| (R3) (R4)

| B.Uma(R5)

| (wife of R3)

|||

MohanaKavitha Nirmaladevi

(1st Appellant) (2nd Appellant) (1st respondent)

3. The case of appellants is that the appellant and 1st respondent's father Chinnusamy lived as joint family and there was partition in the family on 26.10.1998. The father of appellants and 1st respondent became entitled to 1/4th share in the property. Father of appellants and 1st respondent died due to electrocution and thereafter the appellants and their sister viz., the 1st respondent were under the control of respondents 2 to 4. Respondents 2 to 4, being their father's brother and sons, were managing the affairs of the family. Further case of plaintiffs is that under the guise of raising money for the marriage of the 1st appellant, on the request of respondents 2 to 4, on 23.8.2000, appellants and 1st respondent executed mortgage deed relating to B Schedule Item 1 of the property. Further, on the same date 23.8.2000, the appellants and 1st respondent were asked to execute mortgage to raise loan for the marriage expenses of the 2nd appellant. Again, on 25.2.2004, the appellants were taken to Paramathi Registrar's office to execute mortgage relating to B Schedule Items 2 to 4 of the property. Appellants/plaintiffs further alleged that the mortgaged amount of Rs.2,00,000/-and a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-was deposited in the Savings Bank Account and later respondents 2 to 4 have withdrawn the amount for the marriage expenses of the 2nd appellant. In the plaint, the appellants have further averred that the respondents 2 to 4 have taken the appellants to the Registrar's Office on various dates -23.02.2004, 25.02.2004, 29.08.2008 and 07.09.2009 and obtained the sale deeds in respect of items 1 to 4 of B Schedule property. The plaintiffs alleged that all the documents dated 23.02.2004, 25.04.2004 and 29.05.2008 and 07.09.2009 are null and void. Alleging that those documents are not binding upon the appellants and ignoring the said documents, the appellants have filed the suit for partition claiming 2/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties.

4. In the suit for partition, appellants/plaintiffs are to pay court fee a sum of Rs.1,20,098/-. Stating that they have no means to pay the court fee and that they are to be declared as indigent persons and seeking leave to sue as informa pauperis plaintiffs have filed pauper O.P.No.10 of 2010.

5. The said Petition was resisted by the respondents inter alia contending that the documents referred to in the plaint are true and validly executed for the purpose for which they have been vouched to be executed and that all the documents were executed for necessary and lawful purpose. The respondents have mainly contended that the appellants have means to pay the court fees. The appellants have several other properties not shown in the partition deed. It was further averred that the appellants are entitled to properties that are standing in the name of Kumarasamy, the other brother of 2nd defendant and therefore the appellants are entitled to the property. The appellants also own another property in Keezhl Sathampur village and the same has not been shown in the plaint. The 1st appellant's husband is working as Engineer in Public Works Department and the 2nd appellant's husband owns extensive lands and therefore the appellants have sufficient means to pay the court fee.

6. Before the trial Court, the appellants examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and they were cross examined at length. Exs.P.1 and P.2 mortgage deeds were marked. Upon consid