ROSAMMA Vs. CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.M. Appeal is directed against the order in O.P. (Ind.) No. 8 of 1997 of the Sub Court, Kattappana, The plaintiff before the Court below is the appellant.

(2.) The appellant plaintiff filed the above suit claiming that she is an indigent person and sought permission to sue as an indigent person without paying court fee along with the plaint The learned Sub Judge rejected the application for permission to sue as an indigent person, on the ground that she is not an indigent person. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has filed this appeal. The application for permission to sue as an indigent person can be rejected only as per the provisions contained in O.3 3 R.5 CPC It reads:

(3.) On a reading of the order, what we find is that the appellant's parents had properties and that the same have been disposed of for meeting the expenses of her sisters. According to the appellant, she is residing along with her brother, who is maintaining her. Before rejecting the application, the court has to come to a conclusion that the appellant is possessed of sufficient means to pay court fee, and that she has not alienated any property within two months next before the presentation of the application. To prove that the appellant is possessed of sufficient means to pay court fee or that she is able to raise money or that she is possessed of properties and that the income from those properties is sufficient to pay court fee, no evidence has been let in. When it is alleged that the appellant is an indigent person, the burden is on the opposite party to establish that the appellant is not an indigent person. No such evidence has been let in. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below rejecting the application is illegal and as such it is liable to be set aside.