VELU Vs. NAGARAJA NATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question in this civil revision petition is, whether the Court below was right in holding that the petitioners were not indigent persons, but had sufficient means to pay the deficit court-fee on their plaint, which, according to the checkslip, amounted to Rs. 2,347.

(2.) AT the inquiry into the plaintiffs" pauperism, the learned Subordinate Judge found the following facts. The plaintifis were the undivided sons of one Thulasi Nainar. Along with their father and another brother of theirs, they constituted a joint Hindu family. The plaintiffs were living jointly with their father. The family held, in all, 20 acres of land originally. Of these 1.75 1/3 cents were sold in the period between 1949 and 1963. In the remaining lands of the extent of nearly 18 acres, a mortgage had been raised as recently as in 1971.

(3.) IN this revision petition filed by the plaintiffs, their learned counsel Mr. Padmanabhan, characterized the reasoning of the learned Subordinate Judge as based on a two-fold misconception of the law. The first mistake, according to learned counsel, related to a misunderstanding of the extent of the rights of Hindu coparceners in the properties and funds possessed by their undivided family. The second misconception, he said, related to the requirements of Order 33, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.