SADANANDAN Vs. PRABHAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the respondent in O. P. 38 of 1974 filed by the present respondent for permission to sue in forma pauperis The claim is for realisation of Rs. 16,116/- with future interest. The case of the respondent is that he paid the above amount to the present petitioner as the purchase price for the car KLQ 5877. The petitioner took away the car and also did not pay back the amount. The petitioner in his objections to the petition denied his liability and also contended that the petition was liable to be dismissed both on the ground that it was not in the proper form and on the ground that the respondent was not a pauper. According to the petitioner, the respondent was possessed of an item of property having an extent of 30 cents which is worth Rs. 300/- per cent. He did not disclose the above property in the petition filed by him. Nor did he disclose the fact that he is getting a monthly salary as a Government employee. The Trial Court overruled the objection and allowed the petition. The above order is challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) It would appear that during the course of the examination of the respondent, he mentioned that the item of property which he was possessed of was sold away in January, 1973, that he is receiving a monthly salary as a Government employee and is a subscriber to the Provident Fund scheme. According to the petitioner, it was incumbent on the respondent to have produced the document of sale and be should have convinced the Court that he is no longer the owner of the item.

(3.) The petition was filed in 1974 and it was disposed of on 12th March, 1976. The respondent's case from the very start was that he was not possessed of any property. His evidence also has not disclosed that he was in possession of any property within two months before the presentation of the application. There are no materials to show, as matters now stand, that he disposed of any property fraudulently in order to be able to apply for permission to sue as pauper. If the petitioner had any case that the respondent was possessed of property, it was upto him to have taken steps sufficiently early to prove that case. In the absence of such steps, the non production of the sale deed by the respondent is not a circumstance for holding that he was possessed of property during the relevant period.