An indigent person qualifies for exemption from court fees if unable to raise sufficient funds due to current financial circumstances, regardless of property ownership.

1. The petitioner - appellant filed the C.M.C.P. seeking leave to file the appeal as an indigent person, invoking the provisions of Order XLIV , R.1 and R.3 read with Order XXXIII , R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 .

2. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1244 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The decree allowed the respondent to realise an amount of Rs.53 lakhs along with interest and costs from the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the said judgment and decree are incorrect and unsustainable in law. The court fee to be levied and paid in the appeal is Rs.8,29,298/-. The petitioner is not in a position to raise enough funds for making payment of the court fees. He is a pensioner, drawing a monthly pension of Rs.29,500/-. He owns the immovable property scheduled in the petition, but that is the subject matter of this appeal. It is under attachment also. He has other liabilities as well, including a loan availed from his pension account. In the circumstances, he claims that he is entitled to institute the appeal as an indigent.

3. The District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, submitted a report, which was placed on record by the learned Government Pleader, along with a memo dated 13/07/2022. The report says that the petitioner is the owner of 9.20 Ares of land comprised in re - survey No. 65 of Peroorkada Village, which is worth Rs.2,01,86,631/-. He has an yearly income of Rs.3,84,000/- which he obtains from his service pension. It is also reported that he did not dispose of any property within the last two months.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader.

5. The court fees to be paid in the appeal is Rs.8,29,298/-. Going by the report of the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, the annual income of the petitioner is Rs.3,84,000/-. He gets such a yearly income from his pension. He is a retired KSRTC employee. The petitioner averred in his affidavit that he has been drawing a monthly pension of Rs.29,500/-. From the report of the District Collector, it is seen that he has no income other than the pension. If so, what he has stated in his affidavit can be said to be true. It is his version that he has to pay every month Rs.20,000/- towards repayment of the loan availed from his pension account and Rs.25,000/- towards a chitty to the KSFE Ltd., which he had already prized.

6. The report of the District Collector further states that the immovable property he owns is worth Rs.2,01,86,631/-. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that it is the only immovable property owned by the petitioner and it is the subject matter of this appeal. It is under attachment, and therefore, he cannot deal with it. As per Explanation I(a) to R.1 of Order XXXIII of the Code, the subject matter of the suit is exempted while considering the resources of the person, who is bound to pay the court fees. As such, 9. 20 Ares of land owned by the petitioner, although fetches enough value, cannot be reckoned with while deciding whether he is indigent or not. Moreover, the said property is under attachment as per the orders of the court below. What remains with the petitioner is his monthly pension. Considering the amount of total pension he draws in a year and his liabilities it is not able to say that he is able to raise enough funds for making payment of the court fees.

7. In Jagadamma v. Sheela and Another [ 2021 (3) KLT 347 ] a Division Bench of this Court explained what shall be the criteria for deciding the question