K MARIAPPAN Vs. TMT RANGANAYAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein is the respondent in O.P. No. 8 of 1989 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. THE present respondent Ranganayaki instituted a suit in forma pauperis against the revision petitioner, her husband seeking a decree directing him to pay her Rs. 22,500/- by way of arrears of maintenance, Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 1,500/- per annum for clothing and medical expenses from the date of plaint. THE revision petitioner disputed the plaintiff's status as an indigent person contending that his mother-in-law has settled 1 acre and 20 cents of wet land on his wife in the year 1975 and this land is in the enjoyment of the present respondent, and she gets more than Rs. 20,000/- per annum as income from that land. Besides, she is in possession of 25 sovereigns of jewels and cash Rs. 60,000/-. She is in a position to pay court-fee which comes to Rs. 2,251/-. THE Government Pleader has also filed a counter stating that the plaintiff had the necessary wherewithal to pay the court-fee. In the trial court the revision petitioner has examined himself as R.W. 1 and spoken about the enjoyment of the said wet land by the plaintiff. He has also marked the settlement deed dated 21.2.1975. One Velammal as R.W. 2 has deposed that plaintiff Ranganayaki and her father are cultivating the land covered by the settlement deed. Whereas the plaintiff as P.W. 1 denied that the land is in her enjoyment the trial Court has found that as per the terms of the settlement deed both the parties are to get the property on their marriage and after their lifetime it should go to their children. Since both are not living as husband and wife, the land is not in the enjoyment of the wife. Besides, the adangal extracts also have not been filed to prove possession. Holding that there is no acceptable evidence to come to the conclusion that the present respondent is possessed of sufficient means, he has allowed the petition and permitted the wife to sue in forma pauperis.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the Court below has erred in holding the present respondent as pauper in view of the settlement deed dated 21.2.1975 and that the trial court has failed to consider the objection raised by the Government Pleader. But we find from the order of the Court below that the settlement deed itself recites that as the parties are not living as husband and wife, they are not in enjoyment of the said 1 acre 20 cents of wet land covered by the settlement deed. Further as it has been rightly observed by the learned trial judge, the revision petitioner has not chosen to file the adangal extracts before the trial court to prove that the land is under the cultivation of the respondent herein. And admittedly the respondent owns only a life interest in the settlement property. It cannot be said that mere possession and enjoyment of a life interest in this item would make the wife a person possessed of sufficient means to pay the court fee required on the plaint which she has presented to the court. Any person who could be approached for lending money on the strength of the property would certainly hesitate to advance money on account of the fact that what the plaintiff is possessed of is only a life interest in the land and her power of alienation is restricted. Therefore, it is too much to say that in a case like this the plaintiff has sufficient means to pay the court fee. In Rani Ammal v. Rathnasabapathi (AIR 1967 Mad. 424 = 80 L.W. 167) a single judge of this Court has laid down that the word "means" certainly covers all realisable assets within a person's reach, but it is doubtful whether a right to enjoy a particular property for life by which the person entitled to enjoy the same, and has to eke out his livelihood from the income of such property can be considered to have the means even if an offer is made to advance funds on such right. It cannot be equated with the equity of redemption available to a mortgagor which certainly is an asset. The right to enjoy the property is not normally a saleable or encumberable interest, though persons interested might offer to purchase or take a mortgage, not necessarily to help the vendor or mortgagor, but to place the allottee, in embarrassing circumstances. As per Neelam Hosiery Works v. State Bank of India (A.I.R. 1994 Himachal Pradesh 1), by now, it is well settled that the expression ?possession of sufficient means? does not mean possession of sufficient property. It is possible that one may be possessed of sufficient property but still may not be possessed of sufficient means. It will depend on the nature of the property. It will also depend on whether the person concerned can easily come in possession of sufficient means. All this varies from case to case. As pointed out in A.I.R. 1994 H.P. 1, the provisions of O. 33, R. 1. C.P.C. have been enacted to enable poor persons to seek justice by filing suits or appeals without court-fee and in this context, the sufficient means would not be sufficient property and includes such means on which the bare living of the plaintiff or the appellant and the members of his family is dependent. In fact, what is intended is capacity to raise funds by normal and available lawful means and not by any means whatsoever, improper or illegal. It cannot be the purpose of this legislation that the indigent person should first deprive himself of the sole means of livelihood or alienate all his assets and seek justice in penury. While so, it is evident that the court below is justified in permitting the respondent to sue in forma pauperis and I find no merit in the Civil Revision Petition.