JOHNSON Vs. OUSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the order dated 25-8-2006 refusing leave to file the suit as an indigent person. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit against his father for realisation of money. The court-fee payable in the suit is Rs. 29,750/-. The contention of the appellant is that he has no property or income except the properties shown in the schedule to the application for leave to file the suit as an indigent person. Item No. 1 in the C schedule is his residential property and item No. 2 of C schedule is the property assigned to the appellant by his father. The B schedule properties are the movables belonging to the appellant. He contended that except those mentioned in B and C schedule, he has no other properties, assets or income.

(2.) The respondent contended that the appellant is a person having sufficient means to pay the court-fee. A commission was taken out to disprove the contentions raised by the appellant. The Commissioner filed Ext. C1 report. The report of the Commissioner shows that the house of the appellant is having an area of 1200 sq. feet. There is a cattle shed, in which 7 cattle could be accommodated. The Commissioner had seen 4 cows in the cattle shed. The Commissioner has also reported that in the house belonging to the appellant he saw a Television set, Tape recorder, Sewing Machine, V.C.D, Fridge, Heater, Fan etc. There is a motor shed in the properties belonging to the appellant and there is electric connection as well.

(3.) The Court below disbelieved the evidence of the appellant as P.W. 1, and held that no attempt was made by the appellant to assail the Commissioner's report and to set aside the same. A contention was raised that the Commissioner had inspected some other property and not the property belonging to the appellant. This belated contention was negatived by the Court below. The house was shown to the Commissioner by the father of the appellant. The Court below has noticed that if the property inspected by the Commissioner is not owned by the appellant, an application could be filed by the appellant directing the Commissioner to visit the correct place, but that was not done by the appellant. The appellant admitted in evidence that the movables found by the Commissioner are kept in his own house. The Court below concluded that the evidence of P.W. 1, when considered along with Ext. C1 report, would prove that the appellant has sufficient means to pay the court-fee.