SARASWATEWWA Vs. SHIVARUDRAPPA CHANNAPPA KINNALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is by the legal representative of the original plaintiff in O.S. No. 159 of 1957. When the legal representative in appeal came on record, he submitted that he could prosecute the appeal without paying Court fees since the original plaintiff was permitted to file the suit in forma pauperis. He further submitted that he himself was an indigent person within the meaning of Order 33 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Civil Judge who enquired into the matter has held that he would not be an indigent person as contemplated under Order 33, Rule 1 C. P. C. He has further held that the legal representative has no immunity from paying the Court fee. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed.

(2.) The points, therefore, that arise for my consideration in this appeal are-

(3.) The learned Advocate for the revision petitioner invited my attention to a decision in the case of Smt. Kalavati Devi v. Chandra Prakash, AIR1959 All 37 , wherein it is laid down that once the plaintiff is allowed to sue in forma pauperis, the legal representative, after the death of the plaintiff, can continue with the suit without paying the Court fee and without getting declared that he was also an indigent person. This ruling, however, is differed by this Court in the case of Hussain v. J. Khaza Hussain Sab, (1964) 2 Mys LJ 100. His Lordship Chandrashekhar, J., (as he then was) in that case referred to the decision in the Allahabad case and observed: