RANI AMMAL Vs. RATHNASABAPATHI MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for consideration in this application by way of appeal from the master's order is whether the applicant could be deemed to be a pauper within the meaning of Or. 33 rule 1 C. P. C. The explanation to the above rule defines a "pauper" as a person who is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in the suit proposed to be instituted, or, where no fee is prescribed when such person is not entitled to property worth rs. 100 other than his necessary wearing apparel and the subject matter of the suit.

(2.) THE suit proposed to be instituted in this case is for petition and possession of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties and for past mesne profits of a sum of rs. 60,000 and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2500 a month. Plaint A schedule-immovable properties are of the value of Rs. 7,15,760 and B schedule immovable properties are of the value of Rs. 1,76,760, and C schedule immovable rs. 2,60,960-80. The C schedule comprises moveable properties of the value of rs. 10500. In all these items, the appellant claims a half share. One of the objections raised by the respondents-defendants is that the plaint claim, particularly in respect of mesne profits has been highly exaggerated and the original figure of Rs. 20000 has been increased to Rs. 6000 without any justifiable reason to get the suit filed as a pauper. That apart, the question for consideration is whether the appellant can be deemed to be a pauper, as at this stage, we have to take the claim made by the applicant as it is and consider whether she is a person without means to pay the requisite court-fee.

(3.) THE applicant is the daughter of one Palani Mudaliar, son of one Thanikachala mudaliar who was possessed of very considerable properties. Thanikachala mudaliar has executed as many as seven settlement deeds including one in favour of the applicant. Under this settlement the applicant is given of which one yields to her a rent of Rs. 100 according to her but more according to the respondents. It is nevertheless conceded by the respondents that otherwise the applicant is not possessed of any other properties or means. while she was in the box before the master to make out her pauperism, she was put the question in cross-examination whether she was willing to hypothecate the house in favour of the defendants for the amount of the court-fee payable by her which comes to Rs. 4,800-50. The applicant was not predated to give a fortnight answer. She explained that even bankers would not come forward to take a mortgage of the life interest, that if she borrowed, it would not be possible to repay the loan from the income which she gets and that if a mortgage is effected and rents are taken away for realisation of the mortgage amount, it would not be possible for her to maintain herself. I should mention here there is already a mortgage on the life interest of the appellant in respect of which a sum of Rs. 900 is still payable.