1987 Supreme(MP) 568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
B.M. Lal, J.
Kishan – Applicant
Versus
Godawaribai – Respondent
C.R. No. 511 of 1985 (J)
Decided On : 24-09-1987

Headnote:(1)Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 33, R. 1 – share in property – does not amount means to pay Court – fees.

       (2)Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 33, R. 1 – object – is to help bona – fide litigants.

       (3)Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 33, R. 1 – matter of Court – fees – is between indigent person and State.

        Short Note

       1. The trial Court after complying with the mandatory requirements by getting the Case inquired by the Revenue Authorities, reached the conclusion that the wife is an indigent person within the meaning of Order 33, Rule 1 CPC and as such requisite permission was accorded.

       2. Shri Sapre, learned counsel appearing for the applicant strenuously argued that the wife/non – applicant is having 1/7th share in the property of her father, which is worth Rs. 1,75,000/ – and the applicant/husband is ready to purchase the said property for Rs. 40,000/ – . As such Shri Sapre has contended that the wife/non – applicant is possessed of sufficient means within the meaning of Explanation (1) of Order 33, Rule 1 CPC and therefore, the trial Court committed material irregularity and illegality in according permission to sue as an indigent persons. Shri Sapre strongly made reliance on Bihi Khudai Jatul Kubra vs. Bhagalan and Others, AIR 1950 Patna 364, Mukkamalla Venkatasubba Reddi and Another vs. Mukkamalla Kesava Reddi, AIR 1950 Mad. 287 and Velu and Another vs. Nagaraja Natter and Others, AIR 1980 Madras 203. The ratio laid down in these cases is to the effect that the indigent person even if entitled for a share in a properly, he will be deemed to be possessed of sufficient means. But the decision of this Court reported in Amritrao Atmaram Patil and Another vs. Narsingrao Ajabrao Marathe, AIR 1952 Nagpur 47, has ruled that the property over which the indigent person has no domain would only show that he is entitled to the property but he is not possessed of the means to pay Court – fees. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Bhaskar Krisnnarao Deoras v. State of M.P. 1969 MPLJ 69.

       3. Thus, the non – applicant/wife though is having 1/7th share in her father's property, but actually she is not in possession thereof. Further, the intention of the husband is to be gathered from the facts that he himself has assessed the value of the 1/7th share to the tune of Rs. 1,75,000/ – but has offered to purchase to same only for a meagre sum of Rs. 40,000/ – . The expression possessed of sufficient means has been interpreted in various judicial pronouncements as realiable assets which means market price and not a throwaway price. In this context it is pertinent to observe that the object of Order 33, CPC is to help the bona – fide litigants, notwithstanding the merits of the litigation set forth by the parties. In the instant case, nothing has been pointed out that the claim as filed by the non – applicant/wife is not bona – fide. It is also not pointed out that it suffers from such infirmity which may entail rejection of the plaint, being barred by some law. Therefore, in cases where it has not been found that the application has been made just to evade the Court – fees and the report of Revenue Authorities also recommends that the person is an indigent person, in such cases permission to sue as an indigent person has to be granted.

       4. This fact cannot be lost sight of that matter of Court – fees is between the indigent person and the State and ordinarily the defendant is not permitted to raise a grievance unless he links the lis with the jurisdiction of the Court. In the instant case, no such plea has been raised on behalf of the applicant regarding jurisdiction. AIR 1950 Pat. 364, AIR 1950 Mad. 287 and AIR 1980 Mad. 203 dissented from. AIR 1952 Nag. 47 and 1969 MPLJ 69 relied on. Revision dismissed.