MANJINI MUDALIAR Vs. KARUNANIDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the lower court granting permission to the first respondent to sue in forma pauperis. In this revision the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the first respondent has sufficient means to pay the court-fee, and that the lower Court was in error in holding that he has no sufficient means. It is pointed out that one of the items in respect of which partition is claimed is a house property worth Rupees 25,000, that the plaintiff's half share will easily be Rs. 12,500 and that the Court has not taken the value of that item while determining the question of pauperism of the first respondent. The trial Court, in its order, has stated that the first respondent is a clerk in a lorry service drawing a sum of Rs. 200 per month, that he has no properties other than the properties which are the subject-matter of the suit, and that the court-fee payable being Rs. 3169. 50 the first respondent should be granted leave to sue in forma pauperis. It is true that the lower Court mentions that the first respondent will have a share along with his father in the residential terraced house shown as item 10, which has been valued at Rs. 8000 in the plaint. But the lower Court has not taken that into consideration while considering the means of the first respondent, presumably for the reason that the said house is the subject-matter of the suit. This is clear from the observations made by the lower Court that the first respondent is not being maintained by his father, and that he is being brought up by his grandfather at Pondicherry. From these observations, it could be inferred that the lower Court felt that his right to a half share of the house, which he seeks to establish in this suit should not be taken into consideration.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is not a universal rule that the subject-matter of the suit should always be excluded in considering the question of pauperism of the plaintiff. He relies on the decision of Dhananjai prasad v. Rahkeshwar Singh, AIR 1947 Pat 34 and a decision of this Court has pointed out-

(3.) THE revision petition is dismissed.