Section 18A of the Court Fees Act should be interpreted liberally to include suits for removing impediments to the realization and enjoyment of a share in the estate of a deceased husband or parent.

R. C. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara rejecting the petitioner's application under S. 18 A of the Court-fees Act seeking exemption from payment of Court-fee.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed a plaint in the Court of the Subordinate Judge seeking the following reliefs : (A) For a declaration that defendant 1 was not the adopted son of late Chaturbhuja; (B) for a declaration that the deed of gift purported to have been executed by Chaturbhuja in favour of defendant 1 and the sale deeds executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendants 4 to 9 were not valid and binding on the plaintiff; and (C) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the half interest of the plaintiff in the joint family property etc.

( 3 ) SHE alleged therein that her income did not exceed Rs. 3,000/- per annum and filed an application under section 18 A of the Court-fees Act seeking exemption from paying court-fee.

( 4 ) SHE pleaded that late Chaturbhuja and defendant 3 were brothers and the property was their ancestral property. Chaturbhuja died on 30-1-69 while living in jointness. His half interest in the property was the subject-matter of the suit. After the death of Chaturbhuja, defendant 2 was looking after the property. The plaintiff was away from village living with her husband. Later on she learnt about the deed of gift and the claim of defendant No. 1 as adopted son of late Chaturbhuja. The cause of action arose when defendants 1 and 2 declared that defendant 1 was the adopted son of the late Chaturbhuja and claimed under the deed of gift and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from her interest.

( 5 ) DURING the hearing of the application in the court below, it was urged by the opposite parties that the petitioner had withdrawn a substantial amount from her Postal Savings Bank account after the filing of the application. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and that amount could be taken as her income for the year. So he held that the income per annum of the petitioner exceeded Rs. 3,000/ -. The approach and the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge do not find favour with me. The deposit of a certain amount by the petitioner in a particular year does not by itself go to indicate her income for the year. There ought to be clear and categorical evidence to the effect. An applicant may have huge amount with her. That does not disentitle her to seek exemption under S. 18a. Section 18a reads as under :"18a (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act no plaint in respect of a suit filed by a woman whose annual income does not exceed three thousand rupees, for maintenance or for enhancement of maintenance or for recovery of share in the estate of her deceased husband or parent in the family property and no petitions filed by any such woman for divorce on ground of cruelty or other misconduct on the part of her husband shall be chargeable with court-fees. (2) The Court in which such plaint or petition is filed shall have power to make such inquiry as it deems fit for assessing the income of the plaintiff or the petitioner, as the case may be. "the learned Subordinate Judge confused between the provisions contained in O. 33 of the Civil P. C. and the provisions of S. 18a. What is relevant under S. 18a is not sufficient means to pay court-fees but the annual income. This, however, does not conclude the matter because Mr. S. Misra- 2, the learned counsel for the opposite parties, drew my attention to the reliefs claimed and submitted that S. 18a was inapplicable.

( 6 ) SECTION 18a applies when the suit is one for recovery of share. Section 18a does not use the expression 'recovery of possession'. Having regard to the purpose of the beneficial provision, the expression should be given a very liberal interpretation so as to have the widest amplitude. A narrow or technical constr