The assessment of indigent status must strictly rely on actual financial capacity, without speculative assumptions about assistance from third parties.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19thday of June, 2025 This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 21.12.2024 in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in IOP No.2 of 2023 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Perumbavoor [Subordinate Judges Court, Perumbavoor]. Appellant was the petitioner/plaintiff and respondents were the respondents/ defendants in the proceedings before the Sub Court.

2. I.A.No.3 of 2023 was filed by the appellant seeking permission to sue as an indigent person. The suit had been filed by the appellant seeking a declaration and a mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants in the suit. Appellant, a lady aged 76 years, had contended that she has no financial capacity to pay court fees and the legal benefit fund and that she has no property other than the plaint schedule property and that her income is her welfare pension and rental income of Rs.500/-. The dispute leading to the filing of the suit by her concerned the execution of sale deeds by the appellant conveying the plaint schedule property owned by her in favour of the respondents. According to the appellant, the said deeds were executed as security for an amount availed by her son-in-law from an entity by the name Sangeetha Nidhi. According her, the deeds being nothing more than security, no consideration had been received by her. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that a consideration of Rs.1,07,66,000/- had been paid to the appellant towards consideration for executing the sale deed. The Sub Court proceeded to consider the I.A. filed by the appellant seeking to pursue the suit as an indigent and both parties tendered evidence. Exts.A1 to A11 were marked by the appellant and the appellant was examined as PW1. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked by the respondents. No oral evidence was tendered from their part. The report of the Village Officer was marked as Ext.C1. The Sub Court, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence tendered, dismissed the I.A. inter alia holding that there is no ground to hold that the appellant does not have sufficient means to pay the court fee and legal benefit fund, and hence she cannot be permitted to prosecute the suit as an indigent person. She challenges the said order in this appeal.

3. Heard Sri.Philip T. Varghese, Advocate, for the appellant and Sri.K.S.Hariharaputhran, Advocate for the respondents.

4. It is noted that the Sub Court had principally relied on the dictum laid down in Mathai M. Paikeday v. Anthony [2011 (2) KLT OnLine 1102 (SC)] to conclude that financial assistance received by the appellant from her son in law has to be taken into account to determine whether she is possessed of sufficient means or is an indigent unable to pay the court fee. It is noted that in Mathai M. Paikeday (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had concluded as follows:

“To sum up, the indigent person, in terms of explanation I to Rule 1 of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure , is one who is either not possessed of sufficient means to pay court fee when such fee is prescribed by law, or is not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees when such court fee is not prescribed. In both the cases, the property exempted from the attachment in execution of a decree and the subject-matter of the suit shall not be taken into account to calculate financial worth or ability of such indigent person. Moreover, the factors such as person's employment status and total income including retirement benefits in the form of pension, ownership of realizable unencumbered assets, and person's total indebtness and financial assistance received from the family member or close friends can be taken into account in order to determine whether a person is possessed of sufficient means or ind