DEVILAL LALCHAND VYAS Vs. NARMADABAI D/O BADRILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PERUSED the certified copy of the order as well as the record. It has been clearly mentioned by the learned Judge in her order that the appellant did not give true description of the property which he is owning and possessing. It has been pointed out that when the present suit was filed in the year 1991, the appellant claimed that he happened to be an indigent person, however, he was having sufficient money to purchase a house in the year 1994. The learned Judge has also mentioned that the Patwari who visited the house of the appellant for the purpose of making the enquiry of the property owned and possessed by the appellant reported that he found that appellant was having movable property worth Rs. 3,245/ -. Apart from that, it has been also mentioned in the judgment that the appellant is residing as tenant in the house of his own wife by paying Rs. 300/- P. M. to her. It has also come on the record that appellant had gone to Saudi Arab and earned Rs. 75,000/ -. It has also been pointed out that he had purchased a tempo which was sold for Rs. 8,000/ -. The report of the Additional Collector shows that the income of the appellant happens to be Rs. 12,000/- per year.

(2.) WHEN a person seeks the permission of the court to sue as an indigent person, he is obliged to submit description of the property which he owns, truthfully. Topsyturvy, statement made by such person and tricky approach adopted in giving the description of his assets and income disentitles him for seeking the permission from the court to sue as indigent person. One who comes to the court for getting a relief has to come with clean hands. The person who has the tendency of hiding truth in a tricky way has to suffer consequences of such behaviour. Suppressio veri; and suggestio falsi would not help such person and cannot be bestowed with the permission to sue as indigent person.

(3.) IN the present matter the learned trial Judge has rightly returned the untruth to the appellant and dismissed his prayer for suing as indigent person. This court does not find any error whatsoever in the order which has been passed by the trial court. Thus, this appeal stands dismissed and not admitted. It appears that the appellant has fallen in the web woven by him and has misguided himself by his tricks. On humanitarian ground and for allowing him to correct his behaviour, a month's time is granted to pay the court fee in the trial court, because the suit happens to be a suit for partition and demand of his share by the plaintiff. C. c. on charges.