An indigent person seeking to file an appeal must demonstrate a lack of sufficient means to pay the Court fee, as per Order XLIV Rule 1 and Order XXXIII Rule 1.

1. Animadverting upon the order dated 7.02.2011 passed in I.A.No.64 of 2009 in unnumbered Pauper Appeal No.......of 2009, by the on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. Heard both sides.

3. A thumbnail sketch of the relevant facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision, would run thus:

The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of money based on a pro note. After contest the suit was decreed, as against which the defendant who is the revision petitioner herein, preferred appeal informa pauperis. The appellate Court after hearing both sides, rejected the prayer of the defendant to file the appeal informa pauperis.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been focussed on various grounds.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would pilot his arguments to the effect that absolutely there is no iota or shred, shard or miniscule extent of evidence to show that the defendant is having sufficient amount to a tune of Rs.31,525/- to pay as Court fee and prosecute the appeal. Simply because there is admission on the part of the revision petitioner that he is having half share in the agricultural land of 2-1/2 acres, and that he is having half share in the dilapidated house, it does not mean that he is having sufficient means to pay such a huge Court fee. Unless there is evidence to show that he is having sufficient income to pay such a huge Court fee, the question of he filing the appeal informa pauperis would not raise, but the appellate Court simply taking into account the existence of the immovable properties over which the revision petitioner is having interest, dismissed the prayer, warranting interference in the revision.

6. Per contra, in a bid to extirpate and torpedo the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent would pilot his arguments, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:

There is a candid and categorical admission on the part of the revision petitioner herein before the appellate forum that during the year 1993 the said agricultural property was purchased for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. If that be so, it is easily understandable that during the year 2011 that would be worth not less than Rs.20 lakhs, taking into account the escalation in value of the landed properties. Over and above that, there is admission on the part of the petitioner that he is having half share in the house also.

7. The core question arises as to whether law envisages that such a person be allowed to file appeal suit without paying meagre Court fee of Rs.31,525/-.

8. The point for consideration is as to whether in the admitted factual matrix, the lower court was justified in rejecting the prayer of the revision petitioner to file the appeal informa pauperis?

9. Indubitably and indisputably, unarguably and unassailably, the revision petitioner is having half share in an extent of 2-1/2 acres of land, which totally was worth of Rs.1,00,000/- during the year 1993. It could safely be presumed that during the year 2011 such a property would be atleast 15 times more than the value which prevailed during the year 1993. As such it could be taken that the property might have been worth atleast Rs.15 lakhs during the year 2011. So far the house is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is in down at heels and he is only residing in the pial of the house, as there is no worthy the name of the house situated there. However, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that these are all cock and bull stories dished out purely for the purpose of wriggling out of his liability to pay the Court fee of Rs.31,525/-.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also further submit that he also availed loan from Co-operative Society and in connection with it,