A litigant must fully disclose assets to qualify as indigent; suppression of material facts can lead to rejection of indigency applications.

JUDGMENT

Hariprasad, J.

No civilized society could view indigency with disdain. From time immemorial, our ancestors too were compassionate to indigent persons. This view was statutorily recognized for the first time in the Code of Civil Procedure , 1882, despite the operation of the Court Fees Act, 1870 with full vigour. When the Code of 1882 was completely replaced by the 1908 (in short 'the Code') the legislative empathy towards such persons (then described as paupers) was actually enlarged. Under the Code, in order to qualify a person indigent, he need not be in abject poverty. Legal requirement under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code to consider a person indigent is that he should not be possessed of sufficient means (other than property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject matter of the suit) to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in a suit that he proposes to file.

2. Familial disharmony is the root cause of this litigation. Appellant is the mother of the respondents. Appellant alleges that two documents were caused to be executed in the names of her daughters (respondents) by perpetrating fraud and misrepresentation regarding the contents of the documents. According to the appellant, her daughters in cahoots with their husbands committed the fraud and misrepresentation. And, therefore she approached the trial court with a suit by invoking the provisions under Order XXXIII of the Code for setting aside the two settlement deeds alleged to have been executed by her in the names of the respondents. As a consequential relief, a permanent prohibitory injunction decree is also sought for.

3. Facts briefly stated are thus: Appellant is the absolute owner in possession of the plaint A and B schedule properties having an extent of 4 acres 56 cents and 70 cents respectively. She derived title to these properties as per a partition deed bearing No.2007 of 1969 of Kothamangalam SRO and purchase certificates bearing Nos.2422 of 1976 of the Land Tribunal, Kothamangalam and 6578 of 1976 issued by the Special Tahsildar, Land Tribunal, Ernakulam.

4. Appellant's husband expired on 06.04.2016. She has a son, who is pursuing legal profession. Respondents are married away and they are well settled in life.

5. Appellant stated to have executed a registered Will in the year 2006, bequeathing certain properties belonging to her in the names of the respondents and her son. During 2016, the respondents approached the appellant many a time requesting to settle the properties as per the terms of the bequest so that they could enjoy the properties in praesenti. As per the aforementioned Will, 1 acre 52 cents each, out of a total area of 4 acres 56 cents of land, was bequeathed to each respondent and her son. Appellant had no objection in executing a deed of settlement in accordance with the terms of the Will. Appellant was aged 82 years at the time of institution of suit. She, being aged and ailing, bonafide believed that the respondents would not betray her and therefore agreed to execute the settlement deed in tune with the Will. Without reading over the documents and without explaining the contents thereof, she was made to execute them by the respondents and their husbands. Later, she came to understand that more extent of properties had been included in the documents under challenge than agreed to and such items were included by practising deception, fraud and misrepresentation on her.

6. Respondents filed separate written statements denying all the allegations levelled in the plaint. According to them, the appellant is a literate lady and after fully understanding the contents of the documents she executed them at her own free will. 2nd defendant in this suit (2nd respondent) had filed O.S.No.641 of 2015 before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Muvattupuzha, a suit for partition of her share in the property. Appellant's contention that the property exclusively belonged to her is not correct. In fact, the properties