DHANDAPANI UDAYAR Vs. ANNAMMAL MINOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal has been preferred against the order dated 21.9.1993 in O.P.No.34 of 1991 refusing to permit the plaintiffs to sue as paupers.

(2.) THE suit is for recovery of possession. THE court fee required to be paid is Rs.5,625.75. THE appellants stated that they are not in possession of the property. Thus they have no means to pay the court fees. THE counter was filed by the respondent contending that they have obtained a decree on the file of the Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai in O.S.No. 173 of 1991 on 6.11.1992. THE learned Subordinate Judge who passed the order on 21.1.1993, had taken note of this decree and held that since they are in possession of a decree in their favour, they could not be treated as indigent persons. Hence he rejected the claim of the petitioners. In this revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that mere obtaining a decree is not possessing the means to raise funds. According to him, obtaining a decree for possession of a property does not mean that the appellants are in possession of the property itself. THEy have to initiate execution proceedings to recover possession. Only thereafter, they will be in a position to raise money.