CHELLAMMAL Vs. MUTHULAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for an order cancelling the leave granted to the respondent to appeal in forma pauperis. The petitioner in O.P. No. 258 of 1942 on the Original Side of this Court applied for letters of administration to the estate of her deceased husband R.P.P. Adikesavalu Chettiar. The respondent entered a caveat and opposed the application. Her opposition was unsuccessful and the Court ordered letters of administration to issue to the petitioner. The respondent then applied to be allowed to appeal in forma pauperis against this order. She swore an affidavit in which she stated that all the property she possessed was clothing worth Rs. 40. The petitioner had no knowledge then of the respondent's financial position and as the Government Solicitor did not object to a declaration of the respondent's pauperism, she was allowed to appeal in forma pauperis. It has since come to the knowledge of the petitioner that on the 8th February, 1944, the respondent sold certain immovable property for the sum of Rs. 1,300. This was some two months after she had been allowed to appeal in forma pauperis. The purchaser was her son. It is in these circumstances the petitioner asks the Court to set aside the order allowing the respondent to appeal as a pauper.

(2.) THE relevant facts are set out in an affidavit sworn by the petitioner. The respondent herself has not denied the allegations of the petitioner, but she has filed an affidavit sworn by her son. He alleges that the house belonged to his father and it was mortgaged to the Co -operative Society, Rasipuram. In his affidavit the son states that his mother is only entitled to a one -third of the equity of redemption. There is here a clear admission on his part, and he is representing his mother in these proceedings, that when she swore the affidavit in support of her application for leave to appeal in forma pauper is she had an interest in the property. It follows that she obtained an order from the Court without disclosing material facts. In fact, her action amounted to a fraud on the Court. The son says that the equity of redemption is of no value; but we are certainly not prepared to accept his word for this.

(3.) THE application is granted. If the respondent wishes to proceed with the appeal, she must pay the requisite court -fee within one week. She must also pay the costs of this application.